Dark energy may not exist in space scientists claim

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

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

So let me ask you this... What is wrong with allowing the observations to dictate the math?

Why do we arrogantly need to tell the universe how it should behave and when we observe it to not behave the way we want it to in our math, we then are required to invent invisible entities to make the math fit the observation?

The universe is the universe and is *OBSERVED* to be the way it is. You can not tell the universe how it OUGHT to behave. Or is humanity required to throw out common sense when trying to learn about reality?

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.

Of course it's wrong, it's observationally wrong!

Our observation does not fit the mathematical model. That doesn't mean the UNIVERSE ITSELF IS WRONG! How dare that damn universe to defy our models! Doesn't the universe know humanity is much smarter than the universe is!

I don't expect science to "get the answer" immediately. These models for the universe have in the past have 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.

Again, what is just oh so darn wrong with allowing observations and experimentation to dictate how the universe works?

Nothing about the model has been proven as the current model relies on invisible unfalsifiable forms of matter and energy to work because the observations do not fit the model. Observations falsify the model!

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.

Sure, then perhaps science should take my pink unicorn hypothesis more seriously as well, or perhaps we should have science give more serious consideration to the idea of a god. You can't accept one invisible unfalsifiable entity and dismiss all others.

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 is just as valid as any.

Great, so you are in agreement with me that it really is pink unicorns and not dark matter!

Would you like to work with me in getting a paper published?

Well that comes with no real suprise. The real problem is that they are stuck at explaining "redshift" and are in a religous belief system about the big bang. (genesis)

The funny thing about it is that the term itself comes from the biggest sceptic of this theory and was later adapted by it proponents. (Don't remember his name right now maybe someone could help me out)

Before the Big Bang Theory they generally assumed that the universe always had been and there was no "beginning of time". As mind-boggling as it sounds now I consider this to be more likely then a magical unexplainable event which by some unknown means worked against even the established theorys about matter and antimatter.

reply to post by sirnex

So when Murray Gell-Mann first proposed the existence of quarks, would you have said back then that Gell-Mann was arguing that hadrons are made of pink unicorns, because it took years to get the math to work that proved that quarks really did exist?

Why are you so convinced that it is impossible for a strange form of matter to exist that we have not yet discovered? I agree that the math needs to be revised, but revising that math may be what uncovers this strange matter. Or perhaps not.

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

 

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

So let me ask you this... What is wrong with allowing the observations to dictate the math?

Why do we arrogantly need to tell the universe how it should behave and when we observe it to not behave the way we want it to in our math, we then are required to invent invisible entities to make the math fit the observation?

We are not telling Universe how to behave. What we do is using laws established in a different experiment (such as gravity which we studied in detail here in the Solar system) and trying to see that these laws are applicable to a different classes of objects. It may or may not be true, but in many, many cases it works (after all, for example, spectrum of Helium is same here in our Solar system and elsewhere, coming from observable stars).

When the evidence that energy is missing in certain radioactive decays emerged, we didn't "tell" the Universe it needed neutrinos. We made a theory that these might exist, and later found that they do. It's not conceptually different, in a way, from the "dark matter" and all that.

You seem to have a chronic problem comprehending the scientific method, despite best efforts of a few posters here, including Soylent and Phage.

If people followed your line of thought, we'd still be using geocentric model -- it's natural, and we can always say that nature just works that way. Dark Ages at their best.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You seem to have a chronic problem comprehending the scientific method

Riiiiight.... Because it's proper science to simply exclaim that nearly a hundred percent of the universe has magically gone missing (despite it actually being there) because the observations don't fit the model.

Couldn't possibly be humanities infallible math! Silly me!

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Why are you so convinced that it is impossible for a strange form of matter to exist that we have not yet discovered?

This so called strange form of matter has very specific convenient properties. It can never ever ever ever be directly observed. It was literally designed that way on paper so as to not be so readily refuted. You can do a lot of cool tricks with math, like prove dragons can fly and that heavier than air flight is impossible.

Observations should dictate how the universe actually works, not theoretical mathematical constructs that by their very nature can not be observed or proved.

Why are we playing this whole I am high and mightily arrogant, my math is God game? The OBSERVATIONS falsified the model a very long time ago. You can not simply tell the universe it is wrong because you have a few papers with numbers on them that says so.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You seem to have a chronic problem comprehending the scientific method

Riiiiight.... Because it's proper science to simply exclaim that nearly a hundred percent of the universe has magically gone missing (despite it actually being there) because the observations don't fit the model.

Couldn't possibly be humanities infallible math! Silly me!

What would you do if you observed a beta decay and saw that unpredictable fraction of energy is missing? Would you say "oh, let's trash all the science we have so far, the real deal is entirely new"? If your answer is "yes", read my quote above.

Originally posted by sirnex
This so called strange form of matter has very specific convenient properties. It can never ever ever ever be directly observed.

You can NEVER directly observe neutrinos. You cannot time the decay of pi-zero with your grandfather's clock. It's about time you rise above the plane of stupefying simplicity.

reply to post by buddhasystem

What would you do if you observed a beta decay and saw that unpredictable fraction of energy is missing? Would you say "oh, let's trash all the science we have so far, the real deal is entirely new"? If your answer is "yes", read my quote above.

Erm, personally I would figure out whats going on by experimentation before I went ahead and told the particle that what it was doing was wrong. If observations show something is going on then something is going on. Observations are not showing that there is this invisible dark matter and energy that can never be directly observed. Observations are showing that the universe does not behave as the model dictates. That is not sufficient reason to conclude invisible entities in which to make the model fit the observations. The model has been proven wrong by observations, simple as that. You can't say that nearly a hundred percent of the universe has *poof* up and left the universe, that's pure idiocy and you know it.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

What would you do if you observed a beta decay and saw that unpredictable fraction of energy is missing? Would you say "oh, let's trash all the science we have so far, the real deal is entirely new"? If your answer is "yes", read my quote above.

Erm, personally I would figure out whats going on by experimentation before I went ahead and told the particle that what it was doing was wrong.

Sometimes it takes literally decades to design, build and commission an apparatus. So "experimentation" is not like running to the corner grocery to check things out.

Observations are not showing that there is this invisible dark matter and energy that can never be directly observed. Observations are showing that the universe does not behave as the model dictates. That is not sufficient reason to conclude invisible entities in which to make the model fit the observations.

I will repeat third time in a row that with your logic the neutrino hypothesis (and nucleus hypothesis before that) should have been discarded and laughed at, in their time.

The model has been proven wrong by observations, simple as that. You can't say that nearly a hundred percent of the universe has *poof* up and let the universe, that's pure idiocy and you know it.

I'll say it the forth time (whatever it takes, dude): neutrinos. As to "idiocy", I'm not an expert in mental development.

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

 

Why are you so convinced that it is impossible for a strange form of matter to exist that we have not yet discovered?

This so called strange form of matter has very specific convenient properties. It can never ever ever ever be directly observed. It was literally designed that way on paper so as to not be so readily refuted. You can do a lot of cool tricks with math, like prove dragons can fly and that heavier than air flight is impossible...

Who's to say that it could NEVER be observed?

The first people who proposed the existence of an atomic nucleus could not imagine how subatomic particles could be observed, either. They were only a "mathematical construct" until they were eventually observed many years later. That's the way science works -- hypothesis; experimentation; evidence.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Uh, yea you can detect neutrinos directly. They do indeed interact with matter, albeit very weakly. Dark matter is a different crazy thing altogether in that it can not interact directly with matter and thus can never ever ever ever be directly observed. Ever.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Who's to say that it could NEVER be observed?

Um, those who made the crap up. I thought it was pretty well established and known by now that dark matter only interacts gravitationally. Are you telling me your not aware of this? A simple well known fact about dark matter, and your telling me how it is? That's mildly laughable.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Sometimes it takes literally decades to design, build and commission an apparatus. So "experimentation" is not like running to the corner grocery to check things out.

Your point is what? That it's OK to invent unfalsifiable entities to explain away discrepancies with observation compared to mathematical theory simply because it may take time to figure out what is really going on?

That's not science bud, that's laziness.

I will repeat third time in a row that with your logic the neutrino hypothesis (and nucleus hypothesis before that) should have been discarded and laughed at, in their time.

Both analogies are infantile, piss poor and ill thought out. All those things can and have been detected and were known to have been detectable when thought up. Dark matter by it's very nature can NOT be detected, is know to not be able to be detected and was designed that way from the get go simply because the universe decided to "misbehave" and toss out damn near almost all of it's mass.

Because we all know that humanities math is infallible.

I'll say it the forth time (whatever it takes, dude): neutrinos. As to "idiocy", I'm not an expert in mental development.

Wait what? You have mental development problems? Your seriously of the opinion that the universe somehow threw out nearly a hundred percent of it's mass just to screw with our mathematical theories of how we think it ought to work?

That's one sneaky devious universe!

I personally think that H2 is the missing mass in the universe.

www.newtonphysics.on.ca...

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

 

Who's to say that it could NEVER be observed?

Um, those who made the crap up. I thought it was pretty well established and known by now that dark matter only interacts gravitationally. Are you telling me your not aware of this? A simple well known fact about dark matter, and your telling me how it is? That's mildly laughable.

Wait...just because YOU can't think of a method for detecting something -- a method that does not rely on interaction with normal matter -- that means that NO ONE EVER will devise a method to detect it or directly detect its effects?

As you said, this mystery stuff (if it exists) only interacts gravitationally. So, are you saying that you can't imagine that someday someone will devise a method (perhaps only using gravity) to directly detect it?

Perhaps one day when gravity is better understood, a "microscope" of sorts could be developed that uses gravitation (perhaps the hypothetical "graviton") as its detection medium, roughly analogous to the way traditional microscopes use light and other electromagnetic radiation as its detection medium.



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

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Wait...just because YOU can't think of a method for detecting something -- a method that does not rely on interaction with normal matter -- that means that NO ONE EVER will devise a method to detect it or directly detect its effects?

Dude, how are you not getting this simple concept here? Dark matter's properties were theorized to be what they are and those properties do not allow for direct interaction with matter. Ever! It only interacts gravitationally.If you don't believe me, then research dark matter rather than blindly arguing crap you obviously have no clue about. Dark matter by it's very own theorized properties do not allow for direct interaction or detection and by its own theorized properties can only interact gravitationally. This isn't flipping hard to grasp here, but your making a damn near good case showing otherwise.

As you said, this mystery stuff (if it exists) only interacts gravitationally. So, are you saying that you can't imagine that someday someone will devise a method (perhaps only using gravity) to directly detect it?

Allow me to turn on caps and put this in bold text for you.

DARK MATTER'S OWN THEORIZED PROPERTIES DO NOT ALLOW FOR DIRECT DETECTION OR INTERACTION WITH BARYONIC MATTER

This isn't crap I am personally making up, this is what scientists are telling us.

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.

I also have 10 bottles of fairy dust I'd be willing to barter for a vial of neutronium.

Originally posted by sirnex

I will repeat third time in a row that with your logic the neutrino hypothesis (and nucleus hypothesis before that) should have been discarded and laughed at, in their time.

Both analogies are infantile, piss poor and ill thought out. All those things can and have been detected and were known to have been detectable when thought up.

"Detectable"? Purely in theory. In reality, it took 12 years to even develop a concept for detection, and a total 26 years to get the result. If you expect the exact method of detection with your next morning coffee, look who's been infantile.

Dark matter by it's very nature can NOT be detected

You would do well to at least read the Wikipedia article, otherwise you look quite silly.

Originally posted by sirnex
Allow me to turn on caps and put this in bold text for you.

DARK MATTER'S OWN THEORIZED PROPERTIES DO NOT ALLOW FOR DIRECT DETECTION OR INTERACTION WITH BARYONIC MATTER

This isn't crap I am personally making up, this is what scientists are telling us.

Yes -- I understood you the first time.

However, all you are saying is that scientists can't envision a way to detect their current model of dark matter.

That doesn't mean that a method they have not envisioned does not exist. We can't pretend to know EVERY possible future detection method. Perhaps a method that does not rely on interaction with normal matter may one day be devised. Or, perhaps, through the use of gravitation, as I indicated in the above post, because hypothetical dark matter DOES interact gravitationally with normal matter.

Nor does it mean that something like dark matter DOES exist, but in a different model than what they are currently proposing. Perhaps a future model for dark matter will allow for some highly limited and/or exotic manner of interaction with normal matter.


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