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

"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!

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

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.

Hopefully, Planck will clear up some of this mess.

Yousuf Khan

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

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.

[...]

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

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?