Re: dark energy...

Posted by anyman on Feb 16, 2002 at 12:20
(61.183.179.196)

Re: dark energy... (pasti)

Anyman, before you laugh so heartly about what you don't care to understand before you deny, let me tell you that the "dark" matter and "dark" energy are there.The names may be misleading, euphemistic, or whatever you like, but experimental results show that something of this sort(i.e. "dark" matter or/and "dark" energy)must be there in order to explain the data.

i do care to understand and have spent plenty of time toward that end...if you can enlighten me, please feel free

"...something of this sort..." hmm, maybe so, IF there is anything at all

"...experimental results show that something of this sort(i.e. "dark" matter or/and "dark" energy)must be there in order to explain the data."

perhaps you meant to say "experimental results show that something of this sort(i.e. "dark" matter or/and "dark" energy)must be there in order to explain the data [within the overall context of the assumptions and axioms that define the "big bang/inflationary" theory (inflationary theory presently exists in more than 50 different versions :-) with all of it's a priori, preconceptions, subjective biases]

That is exactly what matter does, in an expanding universe,according to Einstein.Dark matter and dark energy are nothing else that elusive names for something (yet to be determined what that something is)that must be put into Einstein's equations to explain observational data.
And by the way, Lorentz's "aether" (another odd name, but again, physicists, and not only, like to use odd names like phonons, photons, photinos, solitons, etc)can also be accomodated by Einstein's equations.So you can think(roughly, intuitively,analogously) about this dark matter as the "aether" Lorentz (and Michelson and Morley) never found.

when you find it, let us know...then we'll have "something" to talk about...in the meantime, you are welcome to...

keep the faith, baby :-)

there are alternative theories (even non-creationary ones) that do not require us to find what those theorists would claim is non-existant "missing" dark matter and dark energy...95-96% of which is missing in the big bang/inflationary paradigm!

i'm not saying that i necessarily agree with those either, but they are being put forth by credible scientists and offer some (though again far from commplete :-) explanatory value

maybe it's time to rethink everything, to file the very problematic, sporting multiple patches and bandaids, big bang/inflationary paradigm in the appropriate circular file...and move on, preferrably toward reality

some references -- while not peer-reviewed, are still poignant for their exposing the thin veneer of credibility of the modern cosmological, astrophysical, and astronomical hodgepodge of chaotic propositions -- follow:

milgrom, does dark matter really exist?, scientific american, aug 2002, pp42-52

chown, strange attraction, new scientist, 20 jul 2002, pp28-32

minkel, the top down universe, new scientist, 10 aug 2002, pp28-31

the cover headlines (always different from the story titles for some incomprehensible reason :-) are also revealing and noteworthy:

is 95% of the universe really missing? an alternative to DARK MATTER

DARK FORCE...have we got gravity all wrong?

the cosmic paradox: as the universe expands, every particle of your body gets squeezed, time to rewrite physics?

respectively for the referred covers above...

you don’t know what you’re talking about, pasti...at least not with nearly the degree of confidence that you portray with your words above


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]