Re: dark energy...

Posted by Pasti on Feb 17, 2002 at 04:03
(64.10.124.205)

Re: dark energy... (anyman)

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

It seems that not enough.Otherwise you would have recognized as correct what Cougar said.My guess would be that you shoud dwell more on general relativity before you start advocating against it.
Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't mind to discuss the subject,but with you, it would be useless.It seems you are incapable to give up the mambo-jumbo in your postings and have a normal argument.

"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..."

That is exactly what I mean, and you know it.

...[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]"

There are not 50 different versions of the inflationary theory, don't worry(but if you could be so kind and list all 50 of them, I wouldn't mind :).
And I hope you do know that Fred Hoyle proposed a steady state universe (that would be what you would be looking for)and it just couldn't be reconciled with the experimental observations.I.e. it is worse than the inflationary model.

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

I would expect something a little bit more intelligent from you than this and the below.This is the mambo-jumbo I was talking about.

"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!"

And which are those?Point me to some references.
And assuming that they are serious theories, why do you thing they have not won over the inflationary ones? And please don't start woth the ideea of the plot meant to downgrade faith or something similar.

"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"

Again, which are those models?And what do you understand by credible scientists?Remember Pons and Fleishmann, and the cold fusion? They were credible scientists!
What I am trying to say is that very few of the "scientists pool" do actually understand the general theory of relativity (I realize how surprising this sounds, but it is unfortunately real), and even some of the today's cosmologists have a limited understanding of it.So don't take everything you read as true, because there isn't.
Let me give you another example. Some time ago Morgan scavanged an article on the Kasimir force, where the authors claimed that they will be looking for short range "additional interactions", or the fith dimension and so on and so forth,and they advertised themselves in the media. The experiment on the isotopic dependence of the Kasimir forece was an interesting one, but their comments about the fifth dimension etc. were rubbish, since they had no clue about elementary particle physics and general relativity. And they were credible scientists too.

"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"

You will probably be surpriesed, but this is done on a daily basis.

"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 ]"

Anyman, these are exactly the refs I am saying that you have to be careful when you actually read them.


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

And I am sure that the National Enquirer has revealing titles too...But again, my advice is that you exercise caution when you read these articles,no matter how close they are to your own ideas.

"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"

You're absolutely right Anyman, how on Earth didn't I figure it out by now? I work in quantum gravitation, and obviously I have no clue whatsoever about gravitation and cosmology!
Come on Anyman,I was expecting something more intelligent comming from you.



Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]