Dark energy may not exist in space scientists claim

reply to post by buddhasystem

"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.

Why am I always that last to find out it's "lack of grasping simple concepts day"?

The thing's you listed were known to be detectable eventually.

Dark matter by it's nature can not be directly detected as it's own theorized physical properties preclude it from direct interaction with matter and the only means of "indirect" detection is through gravitational interactions.

The two concepts do not mesh together at all as the two do not interact the same.

Yes, really... let's honestly look at who's being infantile. You know this just as well as I do, so quiet playing mentally retarded.

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

Yea, it says it can only be detected gravitationally. Your point is what?

No, I'm not talking about the forms of "dark matter" that CAN BE detected, I'm talking about that magical crap that physically CAN NOT be detected. You have issues with contextual clues as well as common sense and simple concepts?

I'm guessing a big yes here because you believe the universe magically threw out nearly a hundred percent of it's mass because some idiot's math paper predicted something that wasn't observed.

Oh no, I almost forgot... Humanities math is infallible.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

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

WTF. There is no way to detect something directly that is known and admitted to by it's very nature and physical properties to NOT INTERACT WITH BARYONIC MATTER. You can build all the expensive instruments you want till you crap out rainbows, the dark matters physical properties DO NOT ALLOW it to interact with the damn things.

Or, perhaps, through the use of gravitation, as I indicated in the above post, because hypothetical dark matter DOES interact gravitationally with normal matter.

Ugh, yes that is the ONLY way it can physically be detected, and that is indirect detection. This article is trying to show that the initial calculations were most likely wrong. That the universe really is what we see and not some magical form of matter that needed to be invented because some idiot got the math wrong.

Ah damn... did it again, sorry about that. Humanities math is infallible.

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 manner of detection.

There is no observational evidence that suggests dark matter exists unless we hang onto the model that predicts more mass than is currently observed.

OBSERVATION FALSIFIES THE MODEL.

That does not mean the math is more correct than the universe. Are we really that arrogant? Do we really think our math is so infallible as to suggest the universe is doing it wrong because our math says so? Jesus...

[edit on 16-6-2010 by sirnex]

I always thought dark matter & dark energy were a cop out anyway. They basically couldn't get the stars to rotate properly around the galaxies so they assumed there must be more matter, dark matter. Then when they discovered the universe expansion accelerating faster than the model predicts, Ta Da, dark energy. Seems to me both problems could be solved if they calculate a variable gravitational force instead of a fixed constant. As one moves away from the super massive black holes now established in every Galaxy the gravitational force may change.

reply to post by GW8UK


Well stated, and simply put.

Since the late 90s I have studied Plasma Cosmology and there has been plenty of evidence for decades before that showing major flaws in the standard cosmological model.

The mainstream is slowly loosening their reins as they admit the truth: that space is not a vacuum but a rarefied plasma;
that there is no need for dark matter or dark energy or black holes;
that the universe is far far far older than any previously stated amount of time..

reply to post by Ionized


The thing I do not understand is the CMB. Doesn't that show that the earth is 14 billion years old?

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by Ionized

 

The thing I do not understand is the CMB. Doesn't that show that the earth is 14 billion years old?

CMB has nothing to do with the Earth. The CMB is assumed to be the left overs of the so called "big bang", for which no other evidence beyond assumption exists.

As far as I can personally gather, it's more probable that the CMB shows us a larger aspect of the universe which our current instruments can't focus on. Sort of like how we see mature galaxies at the supposed "beginning" of the universe where they shouldn't exist. We're constantly seeing mature galaxies near the supposed "beginning" with each newer advance in telescope power. Eventually there is going to come a time when our telescopes can finally focus on the CMB and see the distant structure it shows and we'll see an even further away CMB at the limit of our technology.

reply to post by sirnex


Sorry I did not mean earth, I meant universe

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by sirnex

 

Sorry I did not mean earth, I meant universe

Ah OK, well in that case....


It is currently assumed to show that the universe is between 13-15ish billion years old, depends on what articles you read and which researchers you personally adhere to. A two billion year discrepancy is pretty big in my opinion and I'm somewhat surprised that many of them claiming the CMB shows this can't even agree on the age it supposedly shows.

For all intents and purposes, it's more probable to show a vaster structure of the universe than we can currently detect with our primitive telescopes. I don't buy into assumed "facts" myself, but I know many people here on ATS and a few in this thread eat that stuff up like it's proof of god.

reply to post by sirnex


could you elaborate on, a vaster structure of the universe? Why would the CMB only show a certain section of the universe? Isen't it probable it would show the whole.

It is possible that the CMB is nothing more than a type of localized white noise due to scattering.

You know it has been so many years since I have thought about the specifics, I'm trying to recall the type of scattering. Compton comes to mind but anyhow basically you have particles absorbing and re-emitting the radiation in a different direction. Get this going enough and you achieve a background radiation effect that could be caused by more local and currently active means rather than some 'remnant from the past'.

I should put together some of my old posts on these subjects, it is invigorating to see that more and more light is being shed on these topics.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
could you elaborate on, a vaster structure of the universe? Why would the CMB only show a certain section of the universe? Isn't it probable it would show the whole.

Well if space is actually a rarefied plasma, it then consists of electric and magnetic fields, charged particles in the form of free electrons and ions, and other larger molecular matter in the form of dusts. You would have absorption and emission of light and other energy spectrum. To see the whole might not actually be possible with our current instrument technology. We can see quite far of course. But the allegedly known distances are very much inaccurate, as they rely on only one interpretation of redshift, which has been shown to be applicable only in some circumstances.

edit to add:
Concerning vast structure in the universe:
Plasma cosmology views the large scale universe as cellular and filamentary in nature, with regions of differing plasma states interacting through boundary layers. There is flow of energy and matter over vast distances through filamentary currents, along which galaxies make their home. The differing regions of plasma allow energy storage and perpetual transfer among parts, as it is electromagnetic in nature wherein motion creates fields creates motion. Modern models continue to elaborate on the vast super sheets of galaxies being found, though their exact distribution is likely to be continuously revised as more is understood about the different forms of electromagnetic redshift.

Concerning redshift:
There are redshift mechanisms that do not necessitate the standard, limited in scope, Doppler interpretation. Even Hubble himself, who is often credited as creating the version of Hubble's Law that is taught in all universities, warned against the Doppler interpretation in his last days (you just have to read his book and papers.) Hubble originally discovered an empirical relation between redshift and luminosity. This was mauled by his colleagues into 'velocity' and 'distance' which are mere interpretations of the empirical relation. Hubble never supported and certainly did not create the 'velocity and distance' version of his original relation, yet that version is the underpinning for the entire standard cosmological model. If you go back to the original empirical relation of redshift versus luminosity, you are then free to explore other mechanisms of redshift, which could drastically alter our known mappings of distances. Forward Brillouin Scattering is one possible method that should still be explored, as it has been shown empirically that radiation traveling through certain types of plasma region can redshift while still maintaining a forward direction. This is important because it supports the theory that light can lose energy as it travels from the stars through certain plasma regions, causing redshift that is not due to the stars relative movement.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Ionized]

reply to post by Maddogkull

could you elaborate on, a vaster structure of the universe? Why would the CMB only show a certain section of the universe? Isen't it probable it would show the whole.

Meaning that there is more than what we see now. Such as, we point our telescopes at a certain point and see ton's of galaxies.... I personally think the CMB is filled with galaxies that we can't focus on with current technology, and that the light is diffused. Just like light from a flashlight get's diffused and you can't make out the point of light from a certain distance (say five miles), but if you have a powerful enough telescope, then you can easily see the source giving off the light.

I can't wait until they finally figure out that one of the properties of light is for it to naturally red-shift after traveling billions of light years.

I also look forward to the day when they figure out that the proper conclusion of older galaxies moving away faster than younger ones actually means the expansion of the universe is slowing down (not speeding up). How they come to the conclusion that it means the opposite defies all logic.

Once they figure those 2 things out, they'll realize there is no longer a need for dark energy or dark matter to balance out their equations.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by harrytuttle]

reply to post by harrytuttle


Harry I was editing my post about redshift as you posted lol, I'll add it here too but see the above post for more context:

Concerning redshift:
There are redshift mechanisms that do not necessitate the standard, limited in scope, Doppler interpretation. Even Hubble himself, who is often credited as creating the version of Hubble's Law that is taught in all universities, warned against the Doppler interpretation in his last days (you just have to read his book and papers.) Hubble originally discovered an empirical relation between redshift and luminosity. This was mauled by his colleagues into 'velocity' and 'distance' which are mere interpretations of the empirical relation. Hubble never supported and certainly did not create the 'velocity and distance' version of his original relation, yet that version is the underpinning for the entire standard cosmological model. If you go back to the original empirical relation of redshift versus luminosity, you are then free to explore other mechanisms of redshift, which could drastically alter our known mappings of distances. Forward Brillouin Scattering is one possible method that should still be explored, as it has been shown empirically that radiation traveling through certain types of plasma region can redshift while still maintaining a forward direction. This is important because it supports the theory that light can lose energy as it travels from the stars through certain plasma regions, causing redshift that is not due to the stars relative movement.

Theories are are a wonderful demonstration of creative thinking. Every so often they're supported by tangible evidence. Even when they're proven wrong they've served a purpose in challenging others to think in new ways.

Originally posted by sirnex

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

Yea, it says it can only be detected gravitationally.

False. You didn't bother to read and yes, you do look silly

Here:

Direct detection experiments

Direct detection experiments operate in deep underground laboratories to reduce the background from cosmic rays. These include: the Soudan mine; the SNOLAB underground laboratory at Sudbury, Ontario (Canada); the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (Italy); the Boulby Underground Laboratory (UK); and the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, South Dakota.

The majority of present experiments use one of two detector technologies: cryogenic detectors, operating at temperatures below 100mK, detect the heat produced when a particle hits an atom in a crystal absorber such as germanium. Noble liquid detectors detect the flash of scintillation light produced by a particle collision in liquid xenon or argon. Cryogenic detector experiments include: the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS), CRESST, EDELWEISS, and EURECA. Noble liquid experiments include ZEPLIN, XENON, DEAP, ArDM, WARP and LUX. Both of these detectors are capable of distinguishing background particles which scatter off electrons, from dark matter particles which scatter off nuclei.

The DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA experiments have detected an annual modulation in the event rate, which they claim is due to dark matter particles. (As the Earth orbits the Sun, the velocity of the detector relative to the dark matter halo will vary by a small amount depending on the time of year). This claim is so far unconfirmed and difficult to reconcile with the negative results of other experiments assuming that the WIMP scenario is correct.[52]

Other direct dark matter experiments include DRIFT, MIMAC, PICASSO, and the '___'PC.

On 17 December 2009 CDMS researchers reported two possible WIMP candidate events. They estimate that the probability that these events are due to a known background (neutrons or misidentified beta or gamma events) is 23%, and conclude "this analysis cannot be interpreted as significant evidence for WIMP interactions, but we cannot reject either event as signal."[53]

reply to post by buddhasystem

False. You didn't bother to read and yes, you do look silly

OMFG! Why am I always the last to know it's argue like a complete idiot month! GRRRRR!


WIMPs are NOT the type of dark matter I am referring to. You know it, I know it, everyone else with three brain cells knows it. Stop being a purposeful moron, it isn't funny.

The vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection").

Seriously... FFS ... you know what I am talking about here, I FLIPPING EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IT. Do you do drugs, drink and mix medications all at the same time in order to come up with these idiotic arguments?

Originally posted by Paschar0
Theories are are a wonderful demonstration of creative thinking. Every so often they're supported by tangible evidence. Even when they're proven wrong they've served a purpose in challenging others to think in new ways.

In order to accurately understand the universe, we have to observe and experiment. Man is not intelligent enough to tell the universe how it OUGHT to behave. When we OBSERVE a discrepancy between theory and the universe, it IS NOT the universe that is wrong, it's our math that is wrong. Despite what a bunch of idiots want us to believe.

I can't stand the idea of making up blatantly wrong theories that are observably wrong and calling it science. It does nothing more than retard our understanding of reality and does a disservice to the human race as supposedly being the most intelligent species on the planet.

Originally posted by sirnex

The vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection").

Well, there more than one model of dark matter and the article mentions that. Even then, in the quote you provided contains a possible observable signature.

This is what I've thought right along, now will Hawking flip on this one, and his Hawking Ray's evaporate into wrong?