Another nail in the coffin of dark matter and dark energy.

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Another nail in the coffin of dark matter and dark energy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Unlike religion, when

 Unlike religion, when scientists disagree, labs are where the arugments are settled.

I think this person disagrees with the article above. 

 

https://backreaction.blogspot.de/2017/11/astrophysicist-discovers-yet-another.html?m=1

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I have had a discussion

I have had a discussion previously, I forget the users name on this forum, but I told him I thought that the unaccounted mass and energy of the Universe could be 1) a miscalculation in math or 2) an example of what happens when you have empty space coming in to contact with space (meaning that before the expansion of the Universe (big bang) you had empty space with no energy or matter.

Empty space has an influence on matter much like a vaccum has an effect on smoke when you open the vaccum. The empty space equalized the pressure on the interior of the "tube" sucking in the smoke and other material until the pressure is equal on the inside and the outside.

So you have empty space with a negative pressure with an expanding Universe of positive pressure. The matter and energy inside the Universe is being influenced by the negative pressure outside the Universe.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 BTW Vastet, I was not

 

BTW Vastet, I was not arguing with you, I simply ran accross this article. There might not be a huge consensus on this right now. It is perfectly normal for scientists long term to disagree, and they long term compete over time and prior knowledge gets tweeked and updated. Just like there was a time when scientists thought our galaxy was the extent of the universe. 

 

Point is, who knows what will change in the future. But this counter article is not in agreement with your article. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There are a majority who

There are a majority who believe in dark matter and energy, so it is not surprising. However, I've seen multiple papers that combined absolutely discredit the possibility. There was one just a year or so ago that showed all the stars in all the galaxies move as they should move, and nothing dark is necessary to explain anything.

You have to understand that dark matter and energy both are the result of people thinking that there isn't sufficient mass to explain galactic rotation, and too much for universal expansion. Both forces were invented to explain appearences. But neither force is necessary if galactic rotations are as they should be and the universe is not expanding. There is just as much evidence now for and against dark matter and energy. It is possible I'll be wrong and they'll find it. It is likely that will never happen.

The observable universe may be less than 1% of the universe, in which case all observations on expansion are instantly null and void. The entire hypothesis of dark energy rests absolutely on the assumption the observable universe is the universe, which is quite possibly the most arrogant scientific assumption humanity has yet to make. Take away dark energy, and suddenly you don't need dark matter to hold a galaxy together. Both hypothesis are completely dependant on each other and unproven assumptions, and somehow a majority of scientists haven't noticed the circular logic.

One way or another we'll find out soon. Particle accelerators are running out of places to look for dark matter. I estimate they'll run out of places to look within 20 years. At which point they'll either have found it or proved it never was.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think dark energy

 I don't think dark energy or dark matter are "arrogent" say like claims of magic babies with super powers. 

 

But I do like the fact with science over time, it does adapt and is quicker to update and ditch, unlike religion. 

 

I will say however, I really do not ever see, although I could be wrong, a day where we find a "grand unified theory".  Even in my layperson's understanding, everything seems ultimately messy even the stuff we can explain. 

 

Our species has the great potential to uncover lots of things in the future, but I don't think we will ever get perfect knowledge. Better knowledge, sure, but not a ultimate utopia answer. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There are a

Vastet wrote:
There are a majority who believe in dark matter and energy, so it is not surprising. However, I've seen multiple papers that combined absolutely discredit the possibility. There was one just a year or so ago that showed all the stars in all the galaxies move as they should move, and nothing dark is necessary to explain anything. You have to understand that dark matter and energy both are the result of people thinking that there isn't sufficient mass to explain galactic rotation, and too much for universal expansion. Both forces were invented to explain appearences. But neither force is necessary if galactic rotations are as they should be and the universe is not expanding. There is just as much evidence now for and against dark matter and energy. It is possible I'll be wrong and they'll find it. It is likely that will never happen. The observable universe may be less than 1% of the universe, in which case all observations on expansion are instantly null and void. The entire hypothesis of dark energy rests absolutely on the assumption the observable universe is the universe, which is quite possibly the most arrogant scientific assumption humanity has yet to make. Take away dark energy, and suddenly you don't need dark matter to hold a galaxy together. Both hypothesis are completely dependant on each other and unproven assumptions, and somehow a majority of scientists haven't noticed the circular logic. One way or another we'll find out soon. Particle accelerators are running out of places to look for dark matter. I estimate they'll run out of places to look within 20 years. At which point they'll either have found it or proved it never was.

I believe the key to this discussion is "what is outside our known Universe".

When we figure that out then the human race will go to a new level of intelligence and awarness.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't think

Brian37 wrote:
I don't think dark energy or dark matter are arrogent say like claims of magic babies with super powers.

Religious claims are not scientific claims. Dark matter and energy are the most arrogant scientific claims ever made by humanity. Religious claims are by definition the epitome of arrogance, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about them.

Brian37 wrote:
I will say however, I really do not ever see, although I could be wrong, a day where we find a grand unified theory. Even in my layperson's understanding, everything seems ultimately messy even the stuff we can explain.

I give it a hundred fifty years. 50 to acquire the necessary information, another 100 to realise we have it and what it means. We are acquiring knowledge too fast to keep up with now. It is already impossible for a professional in any subject to keep up with all the papers and discoveries in that subject. 20 years ago we had no idea what caused cancer and had yet to identity a single extraterrestrial planet. Now we have two or three types of cancer on the verge of permanent elimination, and more than 3000 planets outside our solar system have been identified. We even have possible detections of extragalactic planets now. Noone could keep up with that rate of discovery. So it will likely be awhile between the acquisition of the knowledge necessary for a unified theory and the application of one. And of course it will remain subject to tweaks for centuries as fine details are worked out and tested, much like with any field of science.

Brian37 wrote:
Our species has the great potential to uncover lots of things in the future, but I don't think we will ever get perfect knowledge. Better knowledge, sure, but not a ultimate utopia answer.

Perfection is subjective. By definition, we've already had perfect knowledge since before we could speak, and will have it forever; from some person or another's perspective.

Absolute knowledge, or omniscience, is a different story. It would require more energy and matter to describe all matter and energy than exists. And again to describe emergent properties. It would require at least 2 universes just to have absolute knowledge of one, assuming absolute knowledge is even obtainable, which quantum physics currently suggests is not the case. Though there have been some interesting developments on that front in the last couple years.
Regardless of the obtainability, acquiring absolute knowledge would be like acquiring light speed. The closer you get the more energy is required to go further, until you hit infinite energy requirements and a neutron wall.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Here are (5) videos for you

Here are (5) videos for you to watch. My favorite is #5 because it sort of talks about this discussion and what I asked "what is beyond the known Universe"

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

They are long videos. So be prepared to spend some time watching them.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Definitely going to watch

Definitely going to watch those later with my pipe. XD

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Definitely

Vastet wrote:
Definitely going to watch those later with my pipe. XD

I think you will enjoy them. I enjoyed the way they presented the information.

The animation is also good, so you get a visual when the speaker is stating the information.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Just finished the first one.

Just finished the first one. Seemed to take forever before they started getting into the meat of it, and then it suddenly dumped a few trillion steaks into your lap simultaneously. lol. If the video was a video game, the difficulty curve was a 90 degree angle.

I love seeing this kind of video. It goes right to the edge of my ability to absorb without having to look something up every 5 minutes.

Much of my youth I was basically taught so many things were already proven, which I've since learned was far from true. The sad thing is the result of the detachment between the scientists and the teachers. Most science teachers are no better than laymen, and many not even that qualified. It really handicaps the entire population when the first steps in science education have to be erased later in order to actually become a professional in the field.

And the worst thing is how it feeds the religious mindset. An evangelical would watch this (well, assume an evangelical would watch this) and come out feeling validated in rejecting science, having confirmed that science is taught like a religion that is always having to change its tune because it proved itself wrong, which their holy book never does (you can no more use the bible to disprove the bible than you can use the bible to prove the bible). How many people in the last 60 odd years have been taught about the big bang as if were an absolute fact when we've known the whole time that we can only explain what happened a few planck seconds afterwards. The big bang should never have been taught as a fact, but as a prevailing hypothesis which had yet to be disproved. Complete with competing hypothesise and criticisms of each, with a focus on acknowledging we don't know exactly, but we're trying to find out.

Even this post would be misinterpretted by a evangelical, as no matter what exactly happened a few planck seconds before we can explain the universe, something extremely significant occurred and created the CMB. There are a huge number of differing hypothesis of what exactly that event was. A 5th dimensional black hole forming, two universes bouncing off each other, the big bang, this big bounce, cosmic strings colliding, and dozens more. We don't know exactly what happened, and maybe we never will. But we do know something happened. The CMB is pervasive and obvious and cannot be accounted for otherwise. But because religions can focus on minor details poorly presented, they get a foothold in the argument when they have absolutely nothing to contribute.

We desperately need actual scientists teaching science.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I'd have to agree with you

 I'd have to agree with you on the religious getting a foothold. They grab on to one thing, a word or a theory, then they warp it to fit their narrative.

I remember in the 70's watching something about Noah's Ark and they said that the tops of the Himalayyas had shells and salt and blah blah. So that must mean that the waters were that high at one time and the Noah story is true, thus validating the bible.

They didn't understand plate techtonics or where did the water come from or how could Noah survive at that altitude because there would be no oxygen and they would be freezing their nads off AND that most likley there would be massive icebergs. The list goes on, but when they present this stuff in a scientific manner, then people watch it and believe in it.

I agree with the various hypothesis's about how the Universe started. There are so many guesses there and none of them have a guarantee on being the correct one.

It's easy being an hypothetical scientist thinking this shit up, but you need the math to back it up