Great. No "non baryonic dark stuff", no "dark energy". Inflation? Forgetaboutit.
GR doesn't gcare less whether the mass is baryonic or non-baryonic. \the cosmological constant is in GR and has been since the early days. From around 1930 to 1997 or thereabout it was assumed to be 0 because there was no evidence of it being something else. Since then we have found evidence of accelerated expansion, suggesting it may not be 0.
So there is mass out there which we cannot account for. What makes you think any of it is contained in exotic forms of matter?
How many times have we been through this? Non-exotic forms of matter radiate and are thus not dark. Machos are ruled out by weak-lensing experiments.
It is not their 'equipment' that I question, it is their interpretation of the data I question.
The same thing applies. Why do you think you know better than the people who do this for a living when you have next to no knowledge of the subject?
The limits of our technology prevent us from even picking out individual stars in distant galaxies, so why on Earth should I be surprise that you folks can't account for all the mass in distant galaxy?
We can't acount for the mass in our own galaxy or Andromeda or in our own local group!
What does any of that have to do with "dark energy" the thing you claim makes up 70+ percent of the universe?
The dark energy is a separate facet of cosmology.
You may know with a factor of 60 certainly have much "missing mass" you need, but you have no certainty that it's made of of exotic forms of matter.
Yes we do. As you've been told many times. We know how normal matter interacts. We know this from those things your so fond of - lab based experiments. No just any lab-based experiments. Some of the most precise lab-tested experiments in physics.
You had physical empirical evidence, from real controlled experiments that demonstrated they did exist, or the laws of physics were not laws at all. One of those two things had to have been true. In this case, no such requirement exists. All you know is you have mass you can't account for.
Sure it does. Either we have non-baryonic dark matter or our theory of gravity is wrong.
So your brand of GR theory has a zero constant, just like the one Einstein taught eh?
Einstein taught it with a cosmo constant. Its just that when evidence was found of Universal expansion it was assumed to be 0. Now we have evidence of accelerated expansion this is no longer assumed. This evidence came around 40 years after Einstein's death. So your appeal to Einstein is completely flawed.
First of all, I'm not suggesting that any great percentage of your missing mass is found in electrons, it's just that electrons are the largest stable particle of mass that isn't a baryon.
So?
Of course they emit light, and we see them do so in solar flare activity every day.
So?
You don't believe they're even doing the work, but something is certainly heating plasma to millions of degrees.
You're mumbling again. This is nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology.
You can probably point me to countless papers describing the *theoretical* properties of "dark matter", many of them created in a purely ad hoc manner.
The properties are deduced from observations from experiments. Just like those of the neutrino.
So what? Show me a physical experiment where they show up in a lab.
Show me a physical experiment prior to 1956 in which a neutrino showed up in a lab.
My dogma? Sorry, EU theory was around 100 years before I ever heard of the idea. It can't actually be "dogma" because unlike your metaphysical friends, electrons show up in real lab experiments and have been known to heat atmospheric plasma for at least 100 years now.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology OR the topic of this thread. Why are you mentioning it. It is as irrelevant as your uniformed opinion on modern science.
Again, I'm not personally suggesting that all the missing mass is in the form of electrons, I'm simply noting that considering how willfully ignorant your industry seems to be towards current flows in space,
What is my industry? How could you possibly know what it is ignorant of?
it's obvious that at least some small portion of that missing mass is probably located in electrons in space.
I'm sorry? Its obvious that some of the missing, non-radiating, dark matter in the Universe is in the form of the most-easily-detected-form-of-matter-by-its-electromagnetic-radiation in the Universe??? How can you not see what a totally absurd, baffling and hilarious statement this is?
Really? You can count electrons in distant galaxies with current technologies?
We can see whether they are there or not!
You mean your strawman was hilarious, but not particularly related to my personal beliefs.
What strawman?
It never existed. Guth personally "made it up" in his wild imagination.
http://xkcd.com/675/
FYI, I'm not trying to suggest that electrons have the properties you're personally looking for as it relates to dark matter. I'm simply suggesting your industry intentionally, willfully and consciously downplays the significance of them as it relates to events in space, and you certainly don't account for them accurately.
You can say what you want. Doesn't make it true.
The Casimir effect has nothing to do with negative pressure in a vacuum, or inflation.
It has everything to do with negative pressure in a vacuum.
It relates to the carrier particle of the EM field, specifically photons. The geometry of the experiment determines the effect, whether attractive or repulsive. None of that in any way justifies your claims.
It was your claim that Guth made-up negative pressure. This, of course, is completely wrong. As demonstrated by the Casimir efect.
I defined it several times for you folks, you simply ignored them all.
You "defined it" using the ideal gas equation. Which of course is not a definition of any sort whatsoever.
Really? What is it "mostly"?
Well its mostly empty space. But in terms of stuff with mass its mostly stuff that doesn't radiate. Ie most definitely not plasma.
Which has no relevance on this discussion in any way.
It has no relevance on how to deal with science is a religion crap I'll agree. It has everything to do with whether the EM force can be responsible for the large scale structure of the Universe.
Boloney. The EM field is driving that MILLION MILE PER HOUR SOLAR WIND that keeps flying off the sun in spite of all that "gravity".
The Sun is of zero cosmological significance. It has a radius of the less than 10
9m. Galaxy clusters have sizes of ~ 10
23m. That is 14 orders of magnitude larger. Or a factor of a hundred million million. These are also generally considered to be too small to be thought of as cosmological objects. In other words your argument misses the boat by a factor in excess of a hundred million million. That is an absolutely catastrophic fail on your part.
You can certainly find devices that detect them based on their real effect on real physical objects in controlled experiments.
I couldn't prior to 1956. Doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to 1956.
They aren't shy around the lab.
Err. Yes they are. They're very very shy indeed. They typically have a mean free path of a hundred light years of lead! So in less your lab is the equivalent of hundred light years of lead in length then you are completely wrong again. Now, a light year is around 10
16m. A typical lab on the other hand is likely to be about 10 m in length. Meaning, even if your lab happened to be filled with lead you'd still be wrong by a factor of 10
15. Thats a factor of a thousand million million!
You can only do that because you know where they come from. Compare and contrast that with your mythical forms of matter and energy.
And it it shows me exactly how incredibly shy they are. In complete contradiction to your above statement.
They have a practical use however.
You may be correct. Though I can't think of one at the minute. Its irrelevant to the question of whether they exist or not though.
No, it's if they have no empirical effect in a controlled experiment, I have no evidence they do exist.
Dark matter has an empirical effect ina controlled experiment. You don't even need a degree in physics to show that.
Hell, I could simply blatently pilfer your math, call it Godflation, God energy, and God matter and do a better job explaining all the observational evidence in the world, including the observation of a planet full of people that are predominantly theistic throughout recorded human history.
No you couldn't. To do a better explanation you'd need to do it quantitatively. You've just shown everyone how you get this wrong by factors of milillions of millions. I think its very obvious that you couldn't produce any quantitatively reliable theory of cosmology.
That line could easily go down as one of the most ignorant statements in cosmological history.
Nope. The fact that he tested it in a lab means it must have completely missed out gravity in the test. This means its utterly worthless for cosmological considerations.
