ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark energy , dark fluid , dark matter

Reply
Old 5th December 2018, 04:40 AM   #1
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
New Theory Unifies Dark Matter & Dark Energy

From The Conversation:

Bizarre ‘dark fluid’ with negative mass could dominate the universe – what my research suggests


Article:

A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework


A new extended version of LambdaCDM unifies DM and DE into a Dark Fluid with negative gravity.
It's effect on the universe is apparently exactly like the cosmological constant and DE, driving expansion. According to computer simulations this negative matter forms halos around galaxies and explains the rotation curves.
The only weird thing is the addition of a creation tensor so the fluid does not get diluted as the universe expands.
It predicts a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter as well as several other testable predictions.
Very speculative, but it does explain the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 05:11 AM   #2
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 581
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
From The Conversation:

Bizarre ‘dark fluid’ with negative mass could dominate the universe – what my research suggests


Article:

A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework


A new extended version of LambdaCDM unifies DM and DE into a Dark Fluid with negative gravity.
It's effect on the universe is apparently exactly like the cosmological constant and DE, driving expansion. According to computer simulations this negative matter forms halos around galaxies and explains the rotation curves.
The only weird thing is the addition of a creation tensor so the fluid does not get diluted as the universe expands.
It predicts a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter as well as several other testable predictions.
Very speculative, but it does explain the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles.
My bold. Let's see it tested then....
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:44 AM   #3
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
My bold. Let's see it tested then....

Yeah, it might even be possible to get an idea with further analysis of available data.


You can download a copy here, it's very readable and interesting.


It's quite a simple idea. A universe that contains negative mass, with M+ M+ interactions corresponding to the baryons, M+ M- interactions to DM and M- M- interactions to DE.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 12:34 PM   #4
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,335
"addition of a creation tensor"

So just like the steady state universe it has a means to keep resupplying this mystery material?

Quote:
However, Dr. Farnes' research applies a 'creation tensor," which allows for negative masses to be continuously created. It demonstrates that when more and more negative masses are continually bursting into existence, this negative mass fluid does not dilute during the expansion of the cosmos. In fact, the fluid appears to be identical to dark energy.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-univer...osmos.html#jCp
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 5th December 2018 at 12:38 PM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 10:22 PM   #5
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
"addition of a creation tensor"

So just like the steady state universe it has a means to keep resupplying this mystery material?

Yes, that just seems wrong.


What would be amazing though is if the presence of negative matter particles does explain the distribution of DM accurately (as well as the expansion of the universe). It's simple and elegant and adds a symmetry to gravity that has been lacking before.

Simple and elegant doesn't mean anything, but it might be a step closer in discovering what DM and DE actually is. It might spark some new ideas. Negative matter has not really been seriously considered before, has it?

Plus, negative matter is cool and if you just collect some and contain it properly you could build an Alcubierre warp drive.

I'll stick to the LambdaCDM untill the SKA finds out which best explains galaxy distributions etc.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 12:17 AM   #6
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,683
"However, Dr. Farnes' research applies a 'creation tensor," which allows for negative masses to be continuously created. It demonstrates that when more and more negative masses are continually bursting into existence, this negative mass fluid does not dilute during the expansion of the cosmos. In fact, the fluid appears to be identical to dark energy"
Negative mass? Hmm. Where have I heard that term before?

Ahhh, yes, of course...
"The Alcubierre drive or Alcubierre warp drive (or Alcubierre metric, referring to metric tensor) is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created."
Its the missing bit needed for warp drive


*** slinks away in the night ***
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:23 AM   #7
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,187
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:35 AM   #8
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 581
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.
You may well be right. As far as DE is concerned, all we know is that the data doesn't fit the theory. I think there are modifications to the theory which fix the problem (without DE) but they cause other problems.

I think it's "we don't know yet, but we're working on it".
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 08:49 AM   #9
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.

Regarding DE, why do you believe the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or do you believe the universe is not expanding at all?


Regarding DM, something, we don't know what, is out there acting exactly like invisible matter.
It bends light, it affects the orbits of stars, it affects velocity dispersion in galaxies and many more. Completely different galaxy cluster mass estimates are in agreement, there is something there, a lot of it.
What do you think we got wrong?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 08:59 AM   #10
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 581
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Regarding DE, why do you believe the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or do you believe the universe is not expanding at all?


Regarding DM, something, we don't know what, is out there acting exactly like invisible matter.
It bends light, it affects the orbits of stars, it affects velocity dispersion in galaxies and many more. Completely different galaxy cluster mass estimates are in agreement, there is something there, a lot of it.
What do you think we got wrong?
DE: see above.
DM: Tell us what it is.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:08 AM   #11
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Diablo, baron: tell me what baryons are, or chickens, or beauty ...

No surprise, this connects fairly directly to what your view of science is, instrumentalist? Realist? Idealist? ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:19 AM   #12
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 581
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Diablo, baron: tell me what baryons are, or chickens, or beauty ...

No surprise, this connects fairly directly to what your view of science is, instrumentalist? Realist? Idealist? ...
Try telling us what DE and DM are....
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:27 AM   #13
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Try telling us what DE and DM are....
OK, one at a time.

DM: a term used to describe something, observed in several different astrophysical regimes, which is consistent with a form of mass (as defined in GR) that interacts with other forms of mass via gravitation only.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:30 AM   #14
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
DE: a form of energy (per GR) which is consistent with Lambda in (insert GR-based equation here), and consistent with several, different, sets of observational data.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:45 AM   #15
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Try telling us what DE and DM are....
Step one - identify that something exists.

In the case of DM and DE this has been done. Each has been shown to have an effect on large scale properties of the universe.
- DM has been identified as the substance that, for example, holds galaxies together. Distribution of DM around galaxies has been mapped.
- The expansion velocity of the universe is known to be increasing. DE has been identified as the process causing the expansion.

Step two - Investigate the properties of the processes that have been shown to exist to determine what they are and how they act.

- This is ongoing. The results to date of one such investigation are the topic of the OP in this thread.

Yes, DM and DE are shorthand placeholder names for causes/processes that little is known about. This will change as more properties of DM and DE are discovered. Or the names may be kept as an easy identifier of very complex substances/processes, similar to the name "big bang".
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:48 AM   #16
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 581
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
DE: a form of energy (per GR) which is consistent with Lambda in (insert GR-based equation here), and consistent with several, different, sets of observational data.
What form of energy?
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:51 AM   #17
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 581
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Step one - identify that something exists.

In the case of DM and DE this has been done. Each has been shown to have an effect on large scale properties of the universe.
- DM has been identified as the substance that, for example, holds galaxies together. Distribution of DM around galaxies has been mapped.
- The expansion velocity of the universe is known to be increasing. DE has been identified as the process causing the expansion.

Step two - Investigate the properties of the processes that have been shown to exist to determine what they are and how they act.

- This is ongoing. The results to date of one such investigation are the topic of the OP in this thread.

Yes, DM and DE are shorthand placeholder names for causes/processes that little is known about. This will change as more properties of DM and DE are discovered. Or the names may be kept as an easy identifier of very complex substances/processes, similar to the name "big bang".
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:59 AM   #18
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,572
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
How is this hypothesis better at explaining the observed pattern than "datk matter"?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:09 AM   #19
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.

How do you get that?


If the expansion is accelerating, something (for now called DE) is causing it, no matter what theory is devised. You have to deny the acceleration to get rid of DE.


Also no better theory can explain all the different observations of the effects DH has.
Modifying gravity has basically been ruled out as an option.
It curves spacetime and cause gravitational lensing, how will a new theory get rid of that?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:19 AM   #20
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
What form of energy?
???

How would you like me to expand on what I already wrote?

Say what “energy” is, in GR? Something else?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:23 AM   #21
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,148
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
How is this hypothesis better at explaining the observed pattern than "datk matter"?

Hans
If it only requires a single unknown substance, then at the very least it's more parsimonious.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:26 AM   #22
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
Um, no ... I think you have quite misunderstood what DM and DE mean, when used by an astrophysicist or cosmologist.

A new theory of gravity, say, might mean adjusting how either, or both, is described, but that’s all.

For a particle physicist it may be different: if they conclude, from the definition of DM, that it must be a new, undiscovered kind of particle (or particles, or known particles with different properties, such as a heavy, sterile neutrino), then a different theory of gravity would (or may) make their hypothesis moot.

I must say I’m struggling to make sense of your, to me, far too terse comments.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:28 AM   #23
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
I understand that both DM and DE are hypotheses at this point. There is insufficient knowledge of either to form actual scientific theories. Theories are what the current research is working toward. So yes, new theories will eventually be developed. These theories will describe the processes and/or substances in scientifically repeatable and verifiable terms. The underlying observed effects (gravitational for DM and expansion for DE) will still exist.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:40 AM   #24
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I understand that both DM and DE are hypotheses at this point. There is insufficient knowledge of either to form actual scientific theories. Theories are what the current research is working toward. So yes, new theories will eventually be developed. These theories will describe the processes and/or substances in scientifically repeatable and verifiable terms. The underlying observed effects (gravitational for DM and expansion for DE) will still exist.
Nitpick: so far the theory which explains DE is the GR of Einstein from many decades ago, namely, it’s Lambda. One line of observation that has been pursued is whether DE varies with time (or if you prefer something closer to data, redshift); so far Lambda works (I.e. no variation of DE with time).
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:44 AM   #25
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Nitpick: so far the theory which explains DE is the GR of Einstein from many decades ago, namely, it’s Lambda. One line of observation that has been pursued is whether DE varies with time (or if you prefer something closer to data, redshift); so far Lambda works (I.e. no variation of DE with time).
Nitpick accepted and understood. I was trying to get the basic point made without being too technical.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:55 AM   #26
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,187
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Regarding DE, why do you believe the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or do you believe the universe is not expanding at all?
Neither.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Regarding DM, something, we don't know what, is out there acting exactly like invisible matter.
I don't think we do. Seems to me, taking a layman's perspective, that if you discover that the equations you once believe described the universe only describe five percent of it, there's something wrong with those equations. Cosmologists seem to be tying themselves in knots by trying to shoehorn observations into existing theory. As I say, I don't know the maths, but that's not how I envisage science should work. First stop should be to go back to the drawing board. It wouldn't be the first time Einstein was wrong.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:19 AM   #27
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Neither.



I don't think we do. Seems to me, taking a layman's perspective, that if you discover that the equations you once believe described the universe only describe five percent of it, there's something wrong with those equations. Cosmologists seem to be tying themselves in knots by trying to shoehorn observations into existing theory. As I say, I don't know the maths, but that's not how I envisage science should work. First stop should be to go back to the drawing board. It wouldn't be the first time Einstein was wrong.
Are they? Can you provide evidence of this? And would that be all cosmologists?

It has been previously suggested that if some brilliant scientist thinking "outside the box" was able to completely overturn a widely accepted theory, ie; relativity, they would instantly become world renowned, very wealthy, and be recorded in history alongside the giants of science. Why would all the scientists working in cosmology continue to follow existing methodology when they could take your advice, scrap relativity and start over? I suggest that, just maybe, they are a little more knowledgeable than yourself in their chosen fields.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:21 AM   #28
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
baron, like Diablo, you seem to have misunderstood what DM and DE are, as terms used by astrophysics, astronomers, cosmologists, and at least some particle physicists.

Yes, your understanding may be consistent with what, inaccurately, is portrayed in some popular press stories, but here in the SMM&T part of the ISF, we surely should try to get close to what scientists are actually doing and saying, shouldn’t we?

On top, you mistakenly conflate DM and DE (“only describe five percent of it”): as I said above, DE is consistent with Lambda in GR, so the “only describe” can refer to DM only, no? And for this, the number is more like 25% ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:25 AM   #29
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,187
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Are they? Can you provide evidence of this? And would that be all cosmologists?

It has been previously suggested that if some brilliant scientist thinking "outside the box" was able to completely overturn a widely accepted theory, ie; relativity, they would instantly become world renowned, very wealthy, and be recorded in history alongside the giants of science. Why would all the scientists working in cosmology continue to follow existing methodology when they could take your advice, scrap relativity and start over? I suggest that, just maybe, they are a little more knowledgeable than yourself in their chosen fields.
No ****, do you reckon? I thought I had far more knowledge of cosmology than the cosmologists. from just reading a few books. Still, I do understand that your idea of a single scientist 'overturning' existing theory and being hailed a hero is somewhat naive, to say the least. The inertia of widely accepted scientific theory is no minor force, and there is great resistance, and often hostility, to those challenging the status quo. You don't need to be a cosmologist to know that, just have a little knowledge of history.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:28 AM   #30
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,187
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
baron, like Diablo, you seem to have misunderstood what DM and DE are, as terms used by astrophysics, astronomers, cosmologists, and at least some particle physicists.

Yes, your understanding may be consistent with what, inaccurately, is portrayed in some popular press stories, but here in the SMM&T part of the ISF, we surely should try to get close to what scientists are actually doing and saying, shouldn’t we?

On top, you mistakenly conflate DM and DE (“only describe five percent of it”): as I said above, DE is consistent with Lambda in GR, so the “only describe” can refer to DM only, no? And for this, the number is more like 25% ...
If 70% of the universe is supposed to be DE and the other 25% DM, that leaves 5% comprised of 'stuff' the scientists understand and the behaviour of which they can predict. What's wrong with that?
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:31 AM   #31
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by baron View Post
No ****, do you reckon? I thought I had far more knowledge of cosmology than the cosmologists. from just reading a few books. Still, I do understand that your idea of a single scientist 'overturning' existing theory and being hailed a hero is somewhat naive, to say the least. The inertia of widely accepted scientific theory is no minor force, and there is great resistance, and often hostility, to those challenging the status quo. You don't need to be a cosmologist to know that, just have a little knowledge of history.
Ok, I accept that you have insufficient knowlege to discuss this topic. You could have just said that.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:35 AM   #32
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,551
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that negative mass exists, that would make warp travel possible.

So a long shot, but interesting.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.
That's not how science works.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:35 AM   #33
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by baron View Post
No ****, do you reckon? I thought I had far more knowledge of cosmology than the cosmologists. from just reading a few books. Still, I do understand that your idea of a single scientist 'overturning' existing theory and being hailed a hero is somewhat naive, to say the least. The inertia of widely accepted scientific theory is no minor force, and there is great resistance, and often hostility, to those challenging the status quo. You don't need to be a cosmologist to know that, just have a little knowledge of history.
Counter fact: lots of scientists have worked on alternatives to Lambda as an explanation of DE, and quite a few on alternative theories of gravity (I’d put the number of the latter in the thousands).

Counter fact: those who challenged the status quo on DE met ~no resistance or inertia among their colleagues, beyond the usual checking and doing their sums twice. These fields of science are quite unlike the psychology of a decade ago.

Other than me, do you know any working astronomers?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:37 AM   #34
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that negative mass exists, that would make warp travel possible.

So a long shot, but interesting.



That's not how science works.
Baron knows history.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:37 AM   #35
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,551
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Neither.
That doesn't even answer the first question. The answer to "why" can never be "no".

Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Ok, I accept that you have insufficient knowlege to discuss this topic. You could have just said that.
What are you talking about? Baron is a super-expert in physics! I know because he told me he was despite not knowing about some pretty well-known QM stuff.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:38 AM   #36
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,335
Nutrinos are an example of drak matter. Theoreticians don't think there are enough of them to cause the rotation curves, hence the suggestion of more massive WIMPS
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:39 AM   #37
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by baron View Post
If 70% of the universe is supposed to be DE and the other 25% DM, that leaves 5% comprised of 'stuff' the scientists understand and the behaviour of which they can predict. What's wrong with that?
Because you mischaracterize DE, and “scientists understand and the behavior of which they can predict”. Maybe because you have a poor understanding of both?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:40 AM   #38
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That doesn't even answer the first question. The answer to "why" can never be "no".



What are you talking about? Baron is a super-expert in physics! I know because he told me he was despite not knowing about some pretty well-known QM stuff.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:59 AM   #39
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,045
Pushing force is ok.

Inside visible universe is it expanding pushing force.

Too much for you.

I am sorry about that.

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 12:09 PM   #40
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,148
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Pushing force is ok.

Inside visible universe is it expanding pushing force.

Too much for you.

I am sorry about that.

��
Well that sums it up nicely!

ETA: on behalf of the other posters and myself - Apology accepted.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

Last edited by Steve; 6th December 2018 at 12:11 PM.
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.