Dark energy may not exist in space scientists claim

reply to post by sirnex


Sirnex, how is only gravitationaly interacting dark matter untestable? It interacts (at least) gravitationaly, therefore this hypothesis can be tested.

Dark matter is NOT just made up, it is made up to explain OBSERVATIONS. Maybe dark matter explanation is false, but it is a plausible hypothesis.

I am starting to doubt you even know how scientific method works. If you come up with simple logical explanation for our observations that can be mathematicaly expressed, and for some strange reason it would have to involve pink unicorns, then pink unicorns would be a plausible hypothesis, too. That is how scientific method works, it is agnostic of puny humans feelings.

I personally find steady-state universe, or universe with an absolute speed at least as crazy as dark matter, dark energy and bending space one. The only thing I care of is where the evidence leads us.

reply to post by sirnex


There are two kinds of scientific hypotheses - testable and (currently) untestable ones. If some currently untestable hypothesis is logicaly consistent, simple, and explains our observations better or with fewer assumptions, it is a plausible scientific hypothesis! String theory could be an example of untestable one. Dark matter is not, because it can be tested, altough it is hard.

reply to post by sirnex

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.

And dark matter is a plausible scientific hypothesis that tries to make our math right, and explain the discrepancies. What is wrong with that? That is how science works.

reply to post by buddhasystem

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.

Aye, a possible indirect means of detection. The same calculated effects explained by other theories that don't tell us that the universe decided to tell nearly a hundred percent of it's mass to piss off.

What dark matter was created to explain is easily explained without having any missing mass. It is entirely counter-intuitive to claim that almost a hundred percent of the universe is missing. Look up in the sky, that's our universe, that's what we have. The universe didn't decide to play hid and seek because our math is super duper perfect and infallible.

reply to post by Maslo

Sirnex, how is only gravitationaly interacting dark matter untestable? It interacts (at least) gravitationaly, therefore this hypothesis can be tested.

The same effects measured by gravitational detection are explained by other theories that do not require us to toss out nearly a hundred percent of the universe.

Any 'results' for dark matter would be false positives.

Dark matter is NOT just made up, it is made up to explain OBSERVATIONS. Maybe dark matter explanation is false, but it is a plausible hypothesis.

Dark matter is not predicted by any model, it is not observed to exist. It is purely made up because the universe willy nilly decided to not abide by man's infallible model of how the universe ought to behave. Saying dark matter is a plausible explanation for the discrepancy is like saying invisible pink unicorns that interact gravitationally and can exist in space is plausible. Or that god is causing the effect.

I am starting to doubt you even know how scientific method works. If you come up with simple logical explanation for our observations that can be mathematicaly expressed, and for some strange reason it would have to involve pink unicorns, then pink unicorns would be a plausible hypothesis, too. That is how scientific method works, it is agnostic of puny humans feelings.

Please show me which step n the scientific method that allows for making thing's up because observations falsify predicted models.

I personally find steady-state universe, or universe with an absolute speed at least as crazy as dark matter, dark energy and bending space one. The only thing I care of is where the evidence leads us.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence for a finite universe with a beginning that occurred in some fanciful big bang. Unless of course one buy's into assumptions mean facts.

There are two kinds of scientific hypotheses - testable and (currently) untestable ones. If some currently untestable hypothesis is logicaly consistent, simple, and explains our observations better or with fewer assumptions, it is a plausible scientific hypothesis! String theory could be an example of untestable one. Dark matter is not, because it can be tested, altough it is hard.

Dark matter can not be tested directly for at all. Indirect methods of detection would give false positives as there are theories that explain the same thing dark matter explains.

And dark matter is a plausible scientific hypothesis that tries to make our math right, and explain the discrepancies. What is wrong with that? That is how science works.

WHAT!!?? By telling us that almost the ENTIRE UNIVERSE WENT MISSING? You seriously think our math is that infallible???? That's ludicrous! Insane! Etc! Naaaaah, couldn't possibly be us that is wrong, it HAS to be the universe that screwed up!

Science does not work by inventing invisible unfalsifiable entities. That is the realm of religion.

reply to post by sirnex

It is entirely counter-intuitive to claim that almost a hundred percent of the universe is missing. Look up in the sky, that's our universe, that's what we have.

For me it is not counter-intuitive at all. There is no reason why we should be able to directly observe everything in the universe. If the evidence points to 90 % of mass being invisible, so what?

reply to post by sirnex

Dark matter is not predicted by any model, it is not observed to exist.

It is observed by its effects on the speed of stars and gavitational lensing.

There may be better explanation, I am no astrophysicist to judge theories here, I am just pointing out your fallacies.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Maslo]

reply to post by Maslo

For me it is not counter-intuitive at all. There is no reason why we should be able to directly observe everything in the universe. If the evidence points to 90 % of mass being invisible, so what?

Oh please...

Nearly a hundred percent of the universe does not just happen to be some magical form of matter that conveniently can not be directly detected that happens to only interact gravitationally to explain away the mass discrepancy. Not when other simpler theories exist that explain the observations better than a missing universe does.

Observational evidence give's no weight to dark matter. You can't observe the stuff. Other theories describe what we observe without claiming any of the universe is missing or is in some form of magic matter. Any indirect, gravitational 'evidences' in this case would be false positives for dark matter.

There is literally no evidence for dark matter at all. There is no evidence to assume that almost the entire mass of the universe has decided to piss off. There is no evidence that the universe like's to screw around like that.

We assume our model is still correct after observations falsified it, that is why we have the silly notion of dark matter. Not because of any other evidence or observation. That is NOT science. That is religion.

reply to post by sirnex

WHAT!!?? By telling us that almost the ENTIRE UNIVERSE WENT MISSING? You seriously think our math is that infallible???? That's ludicrous! Insane! Etc! Naaaaah, couldn't possibly be us that is wrong, it HAS to be the universe that screwed up!

I dont know what the big deal is. If there is a theory with fewer assumptions that can explain it, then dark matter is probably wrong.


90% of the universes mass being invisible does not seem ludicrous at all to me.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sirnex

 

Dark matter is not predicted by any model, it is not observed to exist.

It is observed by its effects on the speed of stars and gavitational lensing.

There may be better explanation, I am no astrophysicist to judge theories here, I am just pointing out your fallacies.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Maslo]

Observed based on WHAT? It is not predicted nor is it observed by itself.

Other models explain the same thing that dark matter was invented to explain. Other models are simpler in explanation, explain the same thing's and do not require the entire universe to go poof when we observe it.

There is no observational evidence of any kind that proves or implies that damn near the entire universe is missing. It is ONLY through our oh so infallible math that we can even begin to see something like that.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sirnex

 

WHAT!!?? By telling us that almost the ENTIRE UNIVERSE WENT MISSING? You seriously think our math is that infallible???? That's ludicrous! Insane! Etc! Naaaaah, couldn't possibly be us that is wrong, it HAS to be the universe that screwed up!

I dont know what the big deal is. If there is a theory with fewer assumptions that can explain it, then dark matter is probably wrong.


90% of the universes mass being invisible does not seem ludicrous at all to me.

Of course dark matter is wrong. There is not a single shred of evidence for it! It was concocted to do nothing more than hold onto a model that made WRONG PREDICTIONS. The universe is not missing at all nor is there any reason to assume so because some model made wrong predictions.

I mean Jesus Christ... Theories get shot down all the time because of wrong predictions, but something like this, that says almost the entire universe went poof is wholly credible? What utter garbage!

reply to post by sirnex

Observational evidence give's no weight to dark matter. You can't observe the stuff.

There is literally no evidence for dark matter at all. There is no evidence to assume that almost the entire mass of the universe has decided to piss off.

There is evidence of dark matter - speed of stars seems to be affected by it. It is surely not conclusively proven, but thats why it is called a dark matter hypothesis. What do you consider evidence, if this is not enough to imply there is invisible matter?

Any indirect, gravitational 'evidences' in this case would be false positives for dark matter.

There is no evidence that the universe like's to screw around like that. We assume our model is still correct after observations falsified it, that is why we have the silly notion of dark matter. Not because of any other evidence or observation. That is NOT science. That is religion.

And that is just your opinion. Until you have evidence, it is just as plausible as dark matter.

A model is not just false or true. It can be partially true, explaining some observations and not explaining some other observations. You seem to think that because we cannot conclusively explain orbits of stars or expansion of the universe, the big bang model must be totaly wrong. That is NOT how science works.

Current big bang model is maybe false, maybe just incomplete.

reply to post by Maslo

There is evidence of dark matter - speed of stars seems to be affected by it. It is surely not conclusively proven, but thats why it is called a dark matter hypothesis. What do you consider evidence, if this is not enough to imply there is invisible matter?

There is NO evidence.

What we see is a model that made grossly wrong predictions.

An observation that proved those predictions were wrong.

And a scramble to invent some theory that nearly the entire mass of the universe is either missing or locked up in some form of invisible matter solely to hang onto the model the made grossly wrong predictions.

There is no observational evidence beyond the mere fudging of numbers to make a grossly wrong prediction fit a grossly wrong model of the universe. The fudging of numbers has been used to prove heavier than air flight is impossible, observations and experimentation defy that math, and this is the same case that is occurring here. Observations and simpler theories that explain the same thing defy the math that made grossly wrong predictions of how much mass there OUGHT to be FOR THAT MODEL TO ACCURATELY WORK.

The current model has given us no insight into how the universe behaves and we are constantly observing "surprising" thing's in the universe. Nothing should be a surprise of the model is accurate and makes accurate predictions.

And that is just your opinion. Until you have evidence, it is just as plausible as dark matter.

Plasma physics is a well understood phenomena and explains the same thing dark matter does. We can verify observations in the universe by scaling down and modeling thing's with live plasmas. This has been done with positive results and accurately models what w observe. Without any missing mass or magic matter. Mainstream science overlooks and dismisses the role of plasma in space and the physics of plasma in space simply for no other reason than an electrical engineer point it out.

A model is not just false or true. It can be partially true, explaining some observations and not explaining some other observations. You seem to think that because we cannot conclusively explain orbits of stars or expansion of the universe, the big bang model must be totaly wrong. That is NOT how science works.

There is no evidence at all for a big bang! Assumptions don't make evidences! We shouldn't throw out common sense because we want to wish really really really really hard that our math really is infallible and it's the universe that is the problem, not us.

Current big bang model is maybe false, maybe just incomplete.

Maybe false? Let's not kid ourselves. It's utterly false and observably false. You don't assume X means such and such and if thus so then Y must be doing such and such. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE. Assumptions do not give us anything, no insights, no new knowledge, no new technologies, etc. \

The universe appears to be expanding because we do nothing more than assume that redshift is an accurate measure of distance and velocity. All without even testing it to be the case. What we do know about redshift is that it is indeed variable and has been demonstrated as being variable, that means it is not accurate at all. Quasar's don't even follow the rules of redshift vs distance/velocity. Just more observational evidence that the current model is grossly inaccurate and doesn't explain anything properly without assuming things and inventing other things without evidences for either.

Originally posted by sirnex
The same calculated effects explained by other theories that don't tell us that the universe decided to tell nearly a hundred percent of it's mass to piss off.

You are contradicting yourself by telling the Universe to be less weird so as to conform to our liking. Tough luck.

What dark matter was created to explain is easily explained without having any missing mass.

Easily? Where is your grand new theory of the Universe?

It is entirely counter-intuitive to claim that almost a hundred percent of the universe is missing. Look up in the sky, that's our universe, that's what we have. The universe didn't decide to play hid and seek because our math is super duper perfect and infallible.

I guess you have to do some physics to start appreciating the fact that the Universe doesn't cater to simpletons. Both quantum mechanics and even special relativity aren't really intuitive, albeit both seem to work rather well. Helium becoming a superfluid at low temperatures can't possibly be intuitive yet it's the reality. Some people just can't accept anything more complex than a double cheeseburger on their plate.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You are contradicting yourself by telling the Universe to be less weird so as to conform to our liking. Tough luck.

Really now? Observations do not show dark matter to exist, at all. Making a model based on observation is not telling the universe what to do. It's making the model conform to what is actually observed, not what is required to be mathematically invented because the model made a gross miscalculation.

Easily? Where is your grand new theory of the Universe?

Don't be blatantly retarded, OK? What dark matter was concocted to explain is not *the entire universe*, just as other theories that explain the same thing as dark matter are not *intended to explain the entire universe*.

I guess you have to do some physics to start appreciating the fact that the Universe doesn't cater to simpletons. Both quantum mechanics and even special relativity aren't really intuitive, albeit both seem to work rather well. Helium becoming a superfluid at low temperatures can't possibly be intuitive yet it's the reality. Some people just can't accept anything more complex than a double cheeseburger on their plate.

That moronic diatribe still does not refute the simple fact that dark matter has not and can not be observed directly and was invented to explain away grossly wrong predictions compared to observations. Nor does it refute the validity of simpler theories that explain the same phenomena that "dark matter" was invented to explain away so as to hang onto a model that could not make an accurate prediction.

YAY SCIENCE!

I'm guessing you have issues with Occam' Razor? Let's just throw the silly thing out the window and use the theory that is most complex, requires a plethora of invented unobserved and unfalsifiable entities and pat ourselves on the back calling it science.

reply to post by sirnex


I would like to hear your favourite theory, too.

Secondary line.

reply to post by sirnex

So, you are absolutely against the hypothetical idea that there is "something" in the universe that doesn't act like normal matter but still has a gravitational attraction with normal matter.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible for stuff like this to exist. What is your specific evidence that against the hypothetical existence of something with those properties? Why are you so convinced that this stuff CANNOT exist?


[edit on 6/17/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Maslo


I personally like plasma cosmology. 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. Space is filled with with plasma and I see no reason to dismiss plasma physics in space born plasma the way mainstream science does when it dismisses plasma cosmology.

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

 

So, you are absolutely against the hypothetical idea that there could be "something" in the universe that doesn't act like normal matter but still has a gravitational attraction with normal matter.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible for stuff like this to exist.
What is your specific evidence against the hypothetical existence of something with those properties? Why are you so convinced that this stuff CANNOT possibly exist?



[edit on 6/17/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

I didn't say it COULD NOT exist. I said it DOES NOT exist. There is no evidence at all for it's existence beyond mere fudging of numbers to make a failed prediction fit an observation that falsified the prediction.

Jesus Christ... The model was falsified by observation. You can't simply say it's the universe that went missing! Mainstream science dismisses plasma cosmology despite space being filled with plasmas simply because it doesn't describe *everything*, yet the thing's it does describe we can accurately model using real plasma's instead of computerized simulations with fudged numbers.

reply to post by sirnex

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

As with every other physics hypothesis that was first shown to be possible using math, then later (sometimes decades later) had more direct evidence to support it, there will be more experimentation to follow that will attempt to find more direct evidence of dark matter.

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.

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.

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.

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

[edit on 6/17/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]