Distant galaxy cluster proves Dark Energy?

I'm not sure what can disprove Dark Energy. Everything seems to prove it
exists. So did it really need this discovery to prove it any more?

Yousuf Khan

Distant Galaxy Cluster Confirms Dark Energy : Discovery News
"The outward drive of dark energy is such that, in more recent times,
massive galaxy clusters have lacked the gravitational glue to be able to
form."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/0...y-cluster.html

Massive galaxy cluster to shed light on cosmic lumpiness - space - 25
August 2008 - New Scientist Space
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...lumpiness.html

On Aug 25, 10:00*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'm not sure what can disprove Dark Energy. Everything seems to prove it
exists. So did it really need this discovery to prove it any more?

Why not just fart and walk away like the rest of the assclowns here?
The links are always nice, but the whining commentary gets pretty
****ing old. By the way, New Scientist is ****. Quote the arXiv
preprint or give the journal cite, or at least quote a site that can
do proper science reporting.

The real question is how much evidence do *YOU* need to accept dark
matter / dark energy?


* * * * Yousuf Khan

Distant Galaxy Cluster Confirms Dark Energy : Discovery News
"The outward drive of dark energy is such that, in more recent times,
massive galaxy clusters have lacked the gravitational glue to be able to
form."http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/galaxy-cluster.html

Massive galaxy cluster to shed light on cosmic lumpiness - space - 25
August 2008 - New Scientist Spacehttp://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14598-massive-galaxy-cluster-...

On Aug 26, 6:03 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:00 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

I'm not sure what can disprove Dark Energy. Everything seems to prove it
exists. So did it really need this discovery to prove it any more?

Why not just fart and walk away like the rest of the assclowns here?
The links are always nice, but the whining commentary gets pretty
****ing old. By the way, New Scientist is ****. Quote the arXiv
preprint or give the journal cite, or at least quote a site that can
do proper science reporting.

The real question is how much evidence do *YOU* need to accept dark
matter / dark energy?

Why the vitriol? Bad day? Yousuf was just pointing to another source
of information.

When I see something interesting in the popular press I realize that
the reporter had to have a source. My first instinct is to do a
search and when my search ends at arXiv I am a happy guy. What Yousuf
posted is, IMHO, legitimate.

--Mike Jr




Yousuf Khan

Distant Galaxy Cluster Confirms Dark Energy : Discovery News
"The outward drive of dark energy is such that, in more recent times,
massive galaxy clusters have lacked the gravitational glue to be able to
form."http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/galaxy-cluster.html

Massive galaxy cluster to shed light on cosmic lumpiness - space - 25
August 2008 - New Scientist Spacehttp://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14598-massive-galaxy-cluster-...

Mike Jr. wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:03 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
The real question is how much evidence do *YOU* need to accept dark
matter / dark energy?

Why the vitriol? Bad day? Yousuf was just pointing to another source
of information.

Eric lives in a permanent state of bad days.

When I see something interesting in the popular press I realize that
the reporter had to have a source. My first instinct is to do a
search and when my search ends at arXiv I am a happy guy. What Yousuf
posted is, IMHO, legitimate.

--Mike Jr


Absolutely, I hadn't seen anyone else posting an article link of any
kind to this story yet. Perhaps if somebody else bothered to post these
things, then they could go directly to the arxiv link too.

Yousuf Khan

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:00 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'm not sure what can disprove Dark Energy. Everything seems to prove it
exists. So did it really need this discovery to prove it any more?

Why not just fart and walk away like the rest of the assclowns here?
The links are always nice, but the whining commentary gets pretty
****ing old. By the way, New Scientist is ****. Quote the arXiv
preprint or give the journal cite, or at least quote a site that can
do proper science reporting.

Every link is valid, I don't see you posting original articles. So until
you start posting your own links to stories, I invite you to kindly
stick your head up your ass.

The real question is how much evidence do *YOU* need to accept dark
matter / dark energy?


What I have trouble with is the jumping to conclusions that this is a
proof of only one such theory. There are other competing as well as
complementary theories that this could also be a proof of, but no
mention of them. For example, it's equally a valid proof of Dark Fluid,
not just Dark Energy.

Yousuf Khan

On Aug 26, 10:28*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:00 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'm not sure what can disprove Dark Energy. Everything seems to prove it
exists. So did it really need this discovery to prove it any more?

Why not just fart and walk away like the rest of the assclowns here?
The links are always nice, but the whining commentary gets pretty
****ing old. By the way, New Scientist is ****. Quote the arXiv
preprint or give the journal cite, or at least quote a site that can
do proper science reporting.

Every link is valid, I don't see you posting original articles. So until
you start posting your own links to stories, I invite you to kindly
stick your head up your ass.

Those so inclined can do what I do: occasionally parse arXiv, flip
through a journal article, or check RSS feeds on interesting
aggregator sites.


The real question is how much evidence do *YOU* need to accept dark
matter / dark energy?

What I have trouble with is the jumping to conclusions that this is a
proof of only one such theory. There are other competing as well as
complementary theories that this could also be a proof of, but no
mention of them. For example, it's equally a valid proof of Dark Fluid,
not just Dark Energy.

* Yousuf Khan

I'm yet to see dark fluid progress past the press release stage. Dark
energy, on the other hand, makes specific predictions which have been
verified through the accelerated expansion of the universe and the big
bang power spectrum.

I see exactly one preprint about dark fluid on arXiv, and that's the
original paper on the matter. If I had a nickle for every idea that
landed itself an arXiv preprint and a press release which was
purported to explain EEEEVERYTHING, I would be able to take myself and
someone pretty out to a nice resturant for dinner.