|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
On 6/16/2010 6:43 AM, eric gisse wrote:
What a load of HORSE****. The ACTUAL TECHNICAL ARTICLE does not say anything like that. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0524v2 Can't wait for the next stupid ****ing article that says the results DISPROVE COSMOLOGY or something equally stupid and hyperbolic. No of course not, the technical article will never say anything like that, that would be too controversial for Arxiv. Most articles in Arxiv are just meaningless equation forests, and they never ever get to the real point of what they're trying to say. But the scientists who wrote those documents go beyond Arxiv to explain the real meaning of their work. Here for example, one of the scientists who published the paper are saying exactly what their work means: *** Astronomers' Doubts About The Dark Side "Prof. Shanks comments, "CMB observations are a powerful tool for cosmology and it is vital to check for systematic effects. If our results prove correct then it will become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe. So the evidence that the Universe has a 'Dark Side' will weaken!"" http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/As..._Side_999.html *** Of course, the professor never said that Dark Matter or Energy don't exist, he just said the case for them will weaken. You can blame that on headline writers. I interpret the professor's words to mean that don't hold your breath on keeping intact the current ratio of 74:22:4 for DEM:BM. The Planck telescope is currently up there measuring things even more precisely than WMAP, so we'll probably have better data after that. Also in the above article, they mentioned that they expect that CMB light would be slightly blue-shifted, after traveling through great many superclusters before they reach us. *** "If dark energy does exist, then it ultimately causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate. On their journey from the CMB to the telescopes like WMAP, photons (the basic particles of electromagnetic radiation including light and radio waves) travel through giant superclusters of galaxies. Normally a CMB photon is first blueshifted (its peak shifts towards the blue end of the spectrum) when it enters the supercluster and then redshifted as it leaves, so that the two effects cancel. However, if the supercluster galaxies are accelerating away from each other because of dark energy, the cancellation is not exact, so photons stay slightly blueshifted after their passage. Slightly higher temperatures should appear in the CMB where the photons have passed through superclusters. However, the new results, based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which surveyed 1 million luminous red galaxies, suggest that no such effect is seen, again threatening the standard model of the Universe." http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/As..._Side_999.html *** I personally think there is a case for Dark Energy, however it's too early to say we've nailed down its ratios and properties. And of course, you know my views about Dark Matter, I think it's a bunch of horse****. My view is that Dark Matter, Dark Energy are all effects of the laws of gravity that haven't been discovered yet. Yousuf Khan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... | On 6/16/2010 6:43 AM, eric gisse wrote: | What a load of HORSE****. | | The ACTUAL TECHNICAL ARTICLE does not say anything like that. | | http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0524v2 | | Can't wait for the next stupid ****ing article that says the results | DISPROVE COSMOLOGY or something equally stupid and hyperbolic. | | No of course not, the technical article will never say anything like | that, that would be too controversial for Arxiv. Most articles in Arxiv | are just meaningless equation forests, and they never ever get to the | real point of what they're trying to say. But the scientists who wrote | those documents go beyond Arxiv to explain the real meaning of their | work. Work? WORK? ****ing idle doodles are not work! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
On 6/16/2010 1:59 AM, Sam wrote:
How do you, Yousef, compare this news article with the published data for dark matter distribution and the published data showing accelerated cosmic expansion? Well, as I see it, the case for Dark Energy was first made through the observation of distant Type Ia supernovas. But the _proof_ of Dark Energy's existence was made through corroboration with CMB data. Now if the CMB's fluctuations are now statistically suspect, that simply means Dark Energy has no corroboration from an alternative source. So we're back to step one. So the take away here is that using the CMB to prove anything is bogus anyways: it's got nothing to with anything. Using it to prove or disprove Dark Matter or Energy was always an exercise in comedy, pretending to be drama. If Dark Energy exists (and I think the /effect/ does exist), it's being created now, and it wasn't something left over from the Big Bang, and so wouldn't be reflected in the CMB anyhow. The CMB gets distorted by nearby solar winds, by distant superclusters, by dust and gas in the Milky Way in between, etc. It's a mess of a signal. Yousuf Khan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Jun 16, 10:25*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: .... And of course, you know my views about Dark Matter, I think it's a bunch of horse****. My view is that Dark Matter, Dark Energy are all effects of the laws of gravity that haven't been discovered yet. Dark Energy is the cosmological "constant". What is yet to be determined is the physical process that establishes the value of that "constant" for any given age. And the Hubble parameter is very closely related to it... David A. Smith |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/16/2010 6:43 AM, eric gisse wrote: What a load of HORSE****. The ACTUAL TECHNICAL ARTICLE does not say anything like that. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0524v2 Can't wait for the next stupid ****ing article that says the results DISPROVE COSMOLOGY or something equally stupid and hyperbolic. No of course not, the technical article will never say anything like that, that would be too controversial for Arxiv. Uh, 'too controversial for arxiv' what the hell. Most articles in Arxiv are just meaningless equation forests, and they never ever get to the real point of what they're trying to say. Clearly you do not read anything ever posted there. They are preprints for journal articles. But the scientists who wrote those documents go beyond Arxiv to explain the real meaning of their work. Here for example, one of the scientists who published the paper are saying exactly what their work means: *** Astronomers' Doubts About The Dark Side "Prof. Shanks comments, "CMB observations are a powerful tool for cosmology and it is vital to check for systematic effects. If our results prove correct then it will become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe. So the evidence that the Universe has a 'Dark Side' will weaken!"" http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/As..._Side_999.html *** He is wrong. He really, really should know better. Slightly widened WMAP systematics do not alter the case for dark matter or dark energy, both of which the primary evidence for is NOT based on the WMAP spacecraft. Of course, the professor never said that Dark Matter or Energy don't exist, he just said the case for them will weaken. You can blame that on headline writers. Oh, but I can blame THIS on the writers: "Dark energy may not exist in space, scientists claim" and... "Dark matter and energy, the mysterious forces thought to make up 96 per cent of the universe, may not exist according to a groundbreaking study." and... "But scientists now claim that the waves of radiation which were previously measured at about twice the size of the full moon may in fact be less than half that size." Even IF the article is correct, which I have no idea since bolometer tuning is a bit unknown to me, the writeup is HORRIBLY WRONG. I interpret the professor's words to mean that don't hold your breath on keeping intact the current ratio of 74:22:4 for DEM:BM. You can double the error bars on the WMAP systematics, that result won't change. The Planck telescope is currently up there measuring things even more precisely than WMAP, so we'll probably have better data after that. Also in the above article, they mentioned that they expect that CMB light would be slightly blue-shifted, after traveling through great many superclusters before they reach us. Yeah, something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND IRRELEVANT. [...] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/16/2010 6:57 AM, wrote: The paper being cited here says nothing about any of these. It claims, rather, that a secondary piece of evidence, from CMB observations, has larger error bars than is currently believed. The claim is disputed by many people who work on the WMAP data, but even if it is true, it hardly implies nonexistence of dark matter or dark ebergy. That's exactly what I think, however why did anyone ever think they could see anything in the CMB data? At the very least the ratio of 74:22:4 for Dark Energy vs. Dark Matter vs. Baryons is at risk now, since that was completely derived from the CMB data. You don't know how it works at any level, do you? http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...bliography.cfm Hopefully, Planck will clear up some of this mess. Yousuf Khan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Now Dark Matter and Energy may not exist at all!
dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan: On Jun 16, 10:25 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: ... And of course, you know my views about Dark Matter, I think it's a bunch of horse****. My view is that Dark Matter, Dark Energy are all effects of the laws of gravity that haven't been discovered yet. Dark Energy is the cosmological "constant". What is yet to be determined is the physical process that establishes the value of that "constant" for any given age. The cosmological constant is measured to be constant across nearly a Mpc. Would you bother looking at the reference if I took the time to find it in my notebook? What establishes the value is clearly, to me at least, vacuum energy. QFT gets the answer wrong but to me that's because the cutoff energy for QFT's validity is not correct. And the Hubble parameter is very closely related to it... David A. Smith Do you know this for a fact, or are you guessing? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark matter doesn't exist | jacob navia[_5_] | Research | 3 | April 15th 10 06:06 PM |
Complete dark matter theory opens door to weight/energy potential(Dark matter is considered to be the top mystery in science today, solved,really.) And more finding on dark matter ebergy science from the 1930's. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 14th 08 03:03 AM |
Does Dark Matter really exist | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 1 | September 17th 07 04:00 AM |
Does Dark Matter really exist | oldcoot | Misc | 2 | August 21st 07 01:25 AM |
Does Dark Matter really exist | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 2 | August 21st 07 12:15 AM |