Universe twice as bright?

derekmcd · May 16, 2008

Mee_n_Mac · May 16, 2008

If our standard candles are now "brighter" than originally thought, wouldn't that change the size and age assigned to the visible universe ?  I'm assuming that the blocking/dimming numbers used until now are incorrect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

derekmcd · May 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If our standard candles are now "brighter" than originally thought, wouldn't that change the size and age assigned to the visible universe ?  I'm assuming that the blocking/dimming numbers used until now are incorrect. <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>I don't think it is the intensity of the luminosity that is important, rather the consitency of the luminosity and using the magnitude along with redshift to judge distances. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

DrRocket · May 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think it is the intensity of the luminosity that is important, rather the consitency of the luminosity and using the magnitude along with redshift to judge distances.  <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It seems to me that what this does is leave the Hubble curve of redshift vs apparent luminosity unchanged, but then shift the curve for redshift vs actual luminosity, which is based on the standard candle. and reshift vs actual luminosity is redshift vs distance. I should not change the relation to a non-linear one, but change the slope -- the value of the Hubble constant.   I think this is approximately correct for extragallactic sources, since the intergalatic medium is still assumed to be dust free.  And distances to galaxies are quite large compared to distances within galaxies, where the dust is.</p><p>I am more curious about what happens to estimates of the longer distances within the Milky Way Galaxy.  There would be no effect on distances measured from parallax.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If our standard candles are now "brighter" than originally thought, wouldn't that change the size and age assigned to the visible universe ?  I'm assuming that the blocking/dimming numbers used until now are incorrect. <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>It affects the "predicted" size, age, the amount of presumed "dark matter" and a host of other issues that will absolutely defy the current "predictions" of Lambda-CDM theory entirely.  So much for the "predictive" abilities of Lambda-CDM theory.</p><p>If you're a skeptic like me, this type of information is particularly intriguing, expecially since astronomers have been telling me for years that their "methods" of calculating the mass of a distant galaxy in the sky were so accurate that they could be use those numbers to "predict' the existence of something like a long lasting SUSY particle, or something called "cold dark matter".,  They've been telling me for years that there is "missing mass" in galaxies for years, and that their measurement methods to determine distant mass was accurate.  Now we find out that a big chunk of this  "missing mass" is probably due to  our gross underestimation of the mass of a galaxy because of their flawed calculation methods.</p><p>When you look at all the "surprizes' of current astronomy theory, it's hard to really not become a skeptic of the dogma after a while, particularly since it's the metaphysical bondo is 95% of the theory, and the "steel" (emprical science) part of theory is only 5% of the theory.  It's like looking at a car that is 95% bondo, and 5% steel and not having any confidence that it's a safe vehicle.  </p><p>Of course, the optimist in me would probably note that this might actually help reduce the metaphysical baggage by another 5%-10%, but then Lambda-CMD theory would still be based on 90 metaphysicsl constructs, with inflation thrown in to get the party started.</p><p>I can't help but read these articles in utter amazement based on the conversations I've had over the past 3 years with mainstream astronomers.  They seemed utterly convinced of the validity of their calculation methods,  Now we see their methods are not nearly as accurate as they believed.  What's a critic like me to think of this kind of "rock your world" change in astronomy?  I for one think it's time to start over and begin anew.   EU theory offers us a hope of explaining our universe purely in terms of physical phenomenon that are empircally demonstrateable.  IMO that puts that theory head and shoulders above a theory that is currently 95% metaphysics, and has a infamously long track record of being utterly useless when it comes to real "predictive" abilities.   For years I was told that inflation must have existed at the start because the universe is so perfectly spread out.   Last year they "discovered" the universe has huge gaping holes in it.    For years they have been telling me that their mass calculation methods were utterly reliable and could be used to "predict" that amount of "dark matter' that must be present in a galaxy.  Yesterday they told me that their calculation methods were off by at least 100%.  What's a good skeptic to think?</p><p>From my perspective at least, mathematical modeling of uncontrolled observations in the sky is simply not a valid way to do emprical science. Emprical science begins with controlled testing, not computer modeling IMO.  When I now look back at all the Lambda computer models of "cold dark matter", that perspective gets reinforced significally by yesterday's revelations.  The notion of "discovering" new forces of nature via uncontrolled observations in the sky is silly IMO.   Missing mass is not" dark matter", it's just "missing mass".   Acceleration of plasma is not "dark energy", it's just acceleration of plasma.   The metaphysical dogma of current theory is crumbling, and this is just one more nail in the coffin of Lambda-CDM theory.  It demonstrates conclusively that the real predictive abilities of Lambda-CDM theory are utterly worthless, in terms of determining the age of the universe, the "dark matter" component, etc. </p><p>For years, the mainstream has insisted that their theories were superior to EU theory because Lambda-CDM theory could acurrately "predict" the age of the universe.   So much for that arguement. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

damskov · May 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It affects the "predicted" size, age, the amount of presumed "dark matter" and a host of other issues that will absolutely defy the current "predictions" of Lambda-CDM theory entirely.</p><p> ..EU theory offers us a hope of explaining our universe purely in terms of physical phenomenon that are empircally demonstrateable. </DIV><br /></p><p>That's a funny statement, because the ability of EU theory to predict anything based on luminosities would be just as affected as mainstream theory by the new observations and calculations. </p><p>But EU theory has yet to succesfully predict anything outside our Solar System (... if you disagree, I would love to see some actual predictions in a relevant EU thread). The rest of your post is simply a veiled insult to the body of mainstream scientists whose observations most of your EU arguments rely on. I wonder why you bother? </p>

michaelmozina · May 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's a funny statement, because the ability of EU theory to predict anything based on luminosities would be just as affected as mainstream theory by the new observations and calculations. But EU theory has yet to succesfully predict anything outside our Solar System </DIV></p><p>Well, even if that's true, it's only because EU theory is predicated on emprical measurements and emprical science, and we can't take in-situ measurements outside of the solar system, with the single exception of perhaps one of the Voyager satellites.</p><p>Now of course since EU theory is predictated upon emprical science, it would insist that your "missing mass" in distant galaxies has an ordinary explanation.  In other words, it presumes that the mainstream calculations of mass in distant galaxies are seriously flawed.  Guess what we just learned yesterday?  The mainstream methods are hugely "flawed", just as "predicted" by EU theory.  No big deal if you're in my shoes, in fact it is confirmation of the value of the emprical scientific method over metaphysics.  To an empricist like myself, that's no surprise.   I expect it's probably off my more than 100% too. That just happened to be the minimum amount of missing light (and mass) necessary to make their mathematical model workout right.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(... if you disagree, I would love to see some actual predictions in a relevant EU thread).</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure I really do "disagree" in the final analsys, only because EU theory is predicated on what we can empircally measure and empircally test.  Most stuff in the universe is beyond the reach of our current technology, and the distance between galaxies may forever preclude us from "measureing" anyting outside of our own galaxy.</p><p>Even still, what value was there in Lambda-CDM theory two days ago?  It was not accurate.  It wasn't even *close* to accurate.  IMO it is irrational to even suggest that Lambda-CDM theory is somehow superior to EU theory only because it makes inaccurate gussses about distant objects.  How is that helpful in the first place?   What was gained by the mainstream having faith that "missing mass" was contained in "dark matter", rather than normal, ordinary mass?  How did that help us "predict" what we learned yesterday?  We already knew that the mass estimates were wrong, so what was the value of talking about "dark matter", rather than "missing mass"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The rest of your post is simply a veiled insult to the body of mainstream scientists whose observations most of your EU arguments rely on. I wonder why you bother? <br /> Posted by damskov</DIV></p><p>Actually my beef would directly and only relate to Lambda-CDM proponents, not necessarily every mainstream astronomer.   Perhaps I need to be more specfiic in my criticisms.   I actually have a great deal of respect for the folks that put up scientific hardware into space, and design emprical equipment that takes emprical measurements in space.  Those "scientists" are just as much my hero's as yours.  The same it true of the folks that study neutrinos, plasma physics, heliosiesmology, etc.  It's really just a small but controlling subset of individuals that control the core dogma (LAMBDA-CDM theory) of mainstream astronomy today that I have any trouble with.  I only have trouble with these indviduals because these are the folks that tend to publicly accuse me of having mental health problems and who want me to be banned, and who tend to get all uptight about my focus on emprical science.  You might begin to understand my frustration with such individuals when you have walked a mile in my shoes, and you have been accused of having mental problems for defending the emprical method of science.    It turned out yesterday that the emprical method of science was at lesat partitally valided once again, and at least a big part of the "problem" turned out to be related to a bad math formula that was stuck in n someone elses head. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

origin · May 16, 2008

<p> Just a word of caution here.  The article confidently states that 'astronomers' now think the universe is twice as bright, but it looks like it should say <strong><em>an astronomer</em></strong>, or at least one study indicates the universe is twice as bright.  Don't know if it has been peer reviewed or not; we will have to see where this leads.  If it is true fine, if it is not true that is also fine, I just think the pronouncement is a bit premature, based on my very quick research on the issue.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 16, 2008

<p><font><font><font face="arial" size="2">From the article<font face="arial"><p class="MsoNormal"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p></font></font></font></font><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">"I was shocked by the sheer scale of the effect," said<strong> Simon Driver, an astronomer from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland </strong>who led the study. "Most people just kind of said, 'We suspect dust is a minor problem.' I spent much of my career working on deep images from Hubble and I've always ignored dust almost entirely."</font></font></font></font></p><p><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">.......</font></font></font></font><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"><p class="MsoNormal">They used this discrepancy to quantify dust's effect by combing their counts with a model of dust distribution in galaxies developed by <strong>Cristina Popescu of the University of Central Lancashire</strong> and<strong> Richard Tuffs of the Max Plank Institute for Nuclear Physics</strong>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">"It's been a revelation to many people in the community, but there are small groups that had a suspicion this was coming," Driver said. "I wouldn't be surprised if there's a refinement of the result, but I think the result is basically here to stay."</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The research was funded by the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Australian Research Council, the Max-Planck Society and a Livesey award from the University of Central Lancashire.</DIV></p><p class="MsoNormal">There seems to be at least three different individuals involved in the study.   </p></font></font></font></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · May 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>   <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><strong>"It affects the "predicted" size, age, the amount of presumed "dark matter" and a host of other issues that will absolutely defy the current "predictions" of Lambda-CDM theory entirely.  So much for the "predictive" abilities of Lambda-CDM theory."</strong><br /><br />Please explain how you come to this conclusion?  The amount of dust in galaxies has more to do with their evolution, composition, and energy output.   It has little or nothing to do with their distances.  Their distances are determined using factors such as luminosity and redshift when compared to standard candles such as type 1A supernovae and cepheid variables.  The factors of these standard candles will have to be adjusted across the board.  This doesn't change the standard candles' consistency which is the most important factor.  You know how much you weight, but if you step on a scale and it doesn't match what is known, you adjust the scale, not your mass.  The added dust throws off the magnitude of the standard candles and they will have to adjust them... nothing more.<br /><strong><br />"Now of course since EU theory is predictated upon emprical science, it would insist that your "missing mass" in distant galaxies has an ordinary explanation.  In other words, it presumes that the mainstream calculations of mass in distant galaxies are seriously flawed.  Guess what we just learned yesterday?  The mainstream methods are hugely "flawed", just as "predicted" by EU theory."</strong><br /><br />What is flawed about it other than the overall composition of the galaxies may have more baryonic matter than what was originally thought?  The mass of the galaxies haven't changed, just the matter within them.  The amount of dust lessens the amount of dark matter.  It's really insignificant, though.  Not nearly enough new dust in the formula to discount the  need for a dark matter type solution.<br /><br />The age of the universe is based on measurement from the WMAP and CMB... this has nothing to do with dust in galaxies.<br /><br />The size of the unvierse is based on the Hubble Constant using factors such as redshift and distances based on the luminosity of standard candles... none of which are affected by this dust.  Again, the magnitude of these candles have to be re-calibrated... the results don't change.</p><p>At least, that's how I interpret these findings... I might be completely misunderstanding the implications. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is flawed about it other than the overall composition of the galaxies may have more baryonic matter than what was originally though?  The mass of the galaxies haven't changed, just the matter within them.  The amount of dust lessens the amount of dark matter.  It's really insignificant, though.  Not nearly enough new dust in the formula to discount the  need for a dark matter type solution.The age of the universe is based on measurement from the WMAP and CMB... this has nothing to do with dust in galaxies.The size of the unvierse is based on the Hubble Constant using factors such as redshift and distances based on the luminosity of standard candles... none of which are affected by this dust.  Again, the magnitude of these candles have to be re-calibrated... the results don't change.At least, that's how I interpret these findings... I might be completely misunderstanding the implications.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Before we get to the other aspects, how exactly did you intend to explain the fact that it's twice as bright as you thought without having twice as many stars in a galaxy? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before we get to the other aspects, how exactly did you intend to explain the fact that it's twice as bright as you thought without having twice as many stars in a galaxy? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure I understand the scope of your question. I think you are trying to lead me into something that is unanswerable.  My response is that there are no astronomers on this planet that can define to an exact degree the number of stars in a galaxy.  Even our own.  </p><p>I see estimates of the Milky Way to be anywhere from 100-400 billion stars.  It is impossible to guess the number of stars in a galaxy that is billions of light years away.  Masses and distances are estimated, luminosity is determined... add in numerous other factors, you can make an educated guess of the number of stars to within a couple billion at best. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure I understand the scope of your question. I think you are trying to lead me into something that is unanswerable.  My response is that there are no astronomers on this planet that can define to an exact degree the number of stars in a galaxy.  Even our own.  I see estimates of the Milky Way to be anywhere from 100-400 billion stars.  It is impossible to guess the number of stars in a galaxy that is billions of light years away.  Masses and distances are estimated, luminosity is determined... add in numerous other factors, you can make an educated guess of the number of stars to within a couple billion at best. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>My question is pretty simple really.  How do you intend to explain a doubling of the amount of photons coming from a galaxy?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It affects the "predicted" size, age, the amount of presumed "dark matter" and a host of other issues that will absolutely defy the current "predictions" of Lambda-CDM theory entirely.  So much for the "predictive" abilities of Lambda-CDM theory.If you're a skeptic like me, this type of information is particularly intriguing, expecially since astronomers have been telling me for years that their "methods" of calculating the mass of a distant galaxy in the sky were so accurate that they could be use those numbers to "predict' the existence of something like a long lasting SUSY particle, or something called "cold dark matter".,  They've been telling me for years that there is "missing mass" in galaxies for years, and that their measurement methods to determine distant mass was accurate.  Now we find out that a big chunk of this  "missing mass" is probably due to  our gross underestimation of the mass of a galaxy because of their flawed calculation methods.When you look at all the "surprizes' of current astronomy theory, it's hard to really not become a skeptic of the dogma after a while, particularly since it's the metaphysical bondo is 95% of the theory, and the "steel" (emprical science) part of theory is only 5% of the theory.  It's like looking at a car that is 95% bondo, and 5% steel and not having any confidence that it's a safe vehicle.  Of course, the optimist in me would probably note that this might actually help reduce the metaphysical baggage by another 5%-10%, but then Lambda-CMD theory would still be based on 90 metaphysicsl constructs, with inflation thrown in to get the party started.I can't help but read these articles in utter amazement based on the conversations I've had over the past 3 years with mainstream astronomers.  They seemed utterly convinced of the validity of their calculation methods,  Now we see their methods are not nearly as accurate as they believed.  What's a critic like me to think of this kind of "rock your world" change in astronomy?  I for one think it's time to start over and begin anew.   EU theory offers us a hope of explaining our universe purely in terms of physical phenomenon that are empircally demonstrateable.  IMO that puts that theory head and shoulders above a theory that is currently 95% metaphysics, and has a infamously long track record of being utterly useless when it comes to real "predictive" abilities.   For years I was told that inflation must have existed at the start because the universe is so perfectly spread out.   Last year they "discovered" the universe has huge gaping holes in it.    For years they have been telling me that their mass calculation methods were utterly reliable and could be used to "predict" that amount of "dark matter' that must be present in a galaxy.  Yesterday they told me that their calculation methods were off by at least 100%.  What's a good skeptic to think?From my perspective at least, mathematical modeling of uncontrolled observations in the sky is simply not a valid way to do emprical science. Emprical science begins with controlled testing, not computer modeling IMO.  When I now look back at all the Lambda computer models of "cold dark matter", that perspective gets reinforced significally by yesterday's revelations.  The notion of "discovering" new forces of nature via uncontrolled observations in the sky is silly IMO.   Missing mass is not" dark matter", it's just "missing mass".   Acceleration of plasma is not "dark energy", it's just acceleration of plasma.   The metaphysical dogma of current theory is crumbling, and this is just one more nail in the coffin of Lambda-CDM theory.  It demonstrates conclusively that the real predictive abilities of Lambda-CDM theory are utterly worthless, in terms of determining the age of the universe, the "dark matter" component, etc. For years, the mainstream has insisted that their theories were superior to EU theory because Lambda-CDM theory could acurrately "predict" the age of the universe.   So much for that arguement. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You repeatedly attack the Lamda CDM model as though it was a mature theory that is agreed upon and that has been tested.  It is nothing more than the best available hypothesis, and one that has aspects that have NOT been validated.  Basically the standard model, driven by general relativity, received a bit of a shock in the late 1990s.  Until that time the general opinion was that the effect of the gravitational field generated by the totality of the mass in the universe was causing the expansion of space-time to slow down.  The question of the time was whether the amount of matter in the universe was sufficient to eventually cause expansion to stop and be followed by a contraction, whether expansion would continue forever, or whether there was just enough matter to cause expansion to slow to zero asymptotically in infinite time.  Then evidence was found that indicates that the rate of expansion is accelerating.</p><p>The accelerating expansion, if true, requires a substantial revision in the model for the Big Bang.  It requires something like the addition of a cosmological constant to general relativity (the lamda).  This may be reflected in something like dark energy, causing a repulsive effect.  But the bottom line is "we don't know".  Throwing rocks at the Lamda CDM mode because of this only demonstrates an inability to understand that "we don't know".  Continually asking for  validated predictions in the face of "we don't know" is just plain silly.  What is true is that by inserting a cosmollogical term into general relativity you can force the model to show accelerating expansion.  Whether or not that corresponds to the rest of reality requires physical observation, and there is no physical confirmation at this point.  That is why it is the Lamda CDM <strong>model</strong> and not an established theory.</p><p>As far as the CDM (cold dark matter) portion of the model goes, this too has been explained to you before.  It is known that the observed matter in galaxies is unable to explain the gravitatinal forces necessary to keep them together under obsrved rotation and to keep galactic clusters together. And again "we don't know" why.  If one postulates the existence of this stuff and puts it into a model driven by general relativity, you can get agreement with observation.  That does not say that it exists, but it does give one a valid hunting license to start looking for it.  No one has put forth an alternate hypothesis that explains the obervations without assuming the existence of dark matter.  Alternate ideas consistent with general relativity and quantum electrodynamics would be evaluated objectively, but no such ideas have come forth.  They may in the future.  I personally hope so.</p><p>The Lamda CDM model is of relatively recent origin.  It is not sacred.  It has aspects that make a lot of people uncomfortable.  It is the best available model, but needs a lot more solid evidence before it is truly "accepted".  I personally would like to see better evidence of the accelerating expansion of the universe, but I don't know how to get it.  Astronomical measurement of distance are difficult to make, and an example illustrating that difficulty is what started this thread.</p><p>You can throw all the rocks that you want at the model, so long as they are grounded in serioius physics.  However, the fact that it is tentative at best and possibly incorrect, does mean that  EU is deserving of serious consideration.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My question is pretty simple really.  How do you intend to explain a doubling of the amount of photons coming from a galaxy? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>"My question is pretty simple really.  How do you intend to explain a doubling of the amount of photons coming from a galaxy?"<br /><br />I've already answered this question in a previous post:<br /><br /><font color="#3366ff"><em>"What is flawed about it other than the overall composition of the galaxies may have more baryonic matter than what was originally thought?  The mass of the galaxies haven't changed, just the matter within them.  The amount of dust lessens the amount of dark matter.  It's really insignificant, though.  Not nearly enough new dust in the formula to discount the  need for a dark matter type solution."</em></font><br /><br />More baryonic matter includes stars.  The central bulges are the crux of the problem.  Several articles I have read claim the central bulges of galaxies are likely more massive than originally thought... thus brighter.  The additional dust scatters the light.  All this extra matter in the system just means less requirements for dark matter.  This is why most statements and articles I have read are centralizing their focus around galactic evolution... not their ages or distances.  If you could provide me a quote or a source showing me the concerns of these scientists supporting this new dusty model about how it affects the things you propose, I would be willing to entertain their ideas.  I guarantee if this new model was in direct conflict with the age, size and evolution of the universe (i.e. big bang), It would be front page news around the world.  The scientific community would be in a complete frenzy.  While this news is a big deal, it is in no way a threat to the BBT or the LambaCDM model.  In fact, this new dusty model is just that... new, and yet you have already incorporated it to fit your model that you are comfortable with.<br /><br />Again, with all that said, I could be misinterpreting everything and be completely wrong in my assessment.  I am open to be corrected.  I do, truly, look at proving prevailing theories and models wrong as progress, but at the same time, I won't abandon them willy nilly on every little thing that challenges them. </p><p>Give me something of substiance... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

spin0 · May 17, 2008

<p>Without reading the paper itself my comment could miss the target - so please take this with a grain of salt:</p><p> </p><p>The article implies this study was done only on optical wavelengths. We know the interstellar dust has much smaller effect on gamma, X-ray, IR and radio wavelengths. A better method to quantify the effect of the interstellar dust in our galaxy would be to compare observations using different wavelenghts - not just optical. His method does not sound very accurate. </p><p> </p><p>There is no mention how the dust affects observations in different directions in our galaxy. It seems his method using the orientation of other galaxies could overemphasize the "sideways" direction where the effect would be the greatest. </p><p> </p><p>Thus it seems his "50% of light" is an oversimplification. Surely this sort of study should quantify the effect of dust more accurately and also account for different wavelengths and directions. Without further studies comparing different wavelenghts I'm not sure this result is "basically here to stay".</p><p> </p><p>Please do remember that my comments could be very wrong as I haven't read the paper, but I will when I find it. Does anyone have a link to it?</p><p> </p><p>About the implications on cosmology: as most observations of distant galaxies, quasars, GRB:s and CMB are not done only in optical wavelenghts I don't think this study will have much effect on LambdaCDM or other BB-models.</p><p>But it could have an effect on some of our standard candles. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spin0 · May 17, 2008

<p>For anyone interested, here's the actual paper:</p><p> </p><p>The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micron<br />Authors: Simon P. Driver (St Andrews), Cristina C. Popescu (UCLan), Richard J. Tuffs (MPIK), Alister W. Graham (Swin.), Jochen Liske (ESO), Ivan Baldry (LJMU) </p><p> </p><p>I was wrong in my previous assumption about optical wavelength only. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For anyone interested, here's the actual paper: The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micronAuthors: Simon P. Driver (St Andrews), Cristina C. Popescu (UCLan), Richard J. Tuffs (MPIK), Alister W. Graham (Swin.), Jochen Liske (ESO), Ivan Baldry (LJMU)  I was wrong in my previous assumption about optical wavelength only.  <br />Posted by spin0</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the link.  Most interesting. They also account for the orientation (the sideways direction) and in fact use an analysiis of that effect to help support their model.  This link provides a little more information on the model andis helpful in understanding the energy output paper.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2310</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems to me that what this does is leave the Hubble curve of redshift vs apparent luminosity unchanged, but then shift the curve for redshift vs actual luminosity, which is based on the standard candle. and reshift vs actual luminosity is redshift vs distance. I should not change the relation to a non-linear one, but change the slope -- the value of the Hubble constant.   I think this is approximately correct for extragallactic sources, since the intergalatic medium is still assumed to be dust free.  And distances to galaxies are quite large compared to distances within galaxies, where the dust is.I am more curious about what happens to estimates of the longer distances within the Milky Way Galaxy.  There would be no effect on distances measured from parallax. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>With a little further reading I find that it seems that more up-to-date determination of the Hubble constant use techniques that do depend on standard candles, but rather on other effects measured from the cosmic background radiation.  So perhaps there is no effect on the HUbble constant from this new perspective on dust attenuation in galaxies.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You repeatedly attack the Lamda CDM model as though it was a mature theory that is agreed upon and that has been tested. </DIV></p><p>No, I attack Lamda-CDM theory as though it's an *untestable* and *unfalsifiable* piece of mainstream dogma.  I know darn well it's never been "tested" at all.   You can't test for 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' because neither of these things exist in nature.  It's a theory based not on testeable physics, but rather unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs.  I'm keenly aware that it was never "tested" at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is nothing more than the best available hypothesis, </DIV></p><p>"Best available hypothesis" by who's standards? IMO EU theory is a far superior theory because it is based on *testable* aspects of physics.  The fact people make *inacurate guesses* with Lambda-CDM theory does not make it a "best" theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and one that has aspects that have NOT been validated.</DIV></p><p>Yep, it's 95% unvalidated, and 95% unfalsifiable too.   I can't demonstrate a negative, so emprical science is based on physically demonstrating the existence of something *before* making up a metaphysical mythos based on the idea.  Nobody demonstrated that "dark energy" could accelerate plasma before claiming "dark energy" was responsible for the phenomenon of acceleration.  You can't even test the idea because you have not idea where "dark energy" comes from, so it is physically impossible to test the idea or falsify the idea.   That one metaphysical construct makes up nearly 3/4 of the Lambda-CDM theory.  The rest is mostly made up of "dark matter", which again is completely unflasifiable because it's never been demonstred to exist or have any effect on nature.    </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Basically the standard model, driven by general relativity, received a bit of a shock in the late 1990s.  Until that time the general opinion was that the effect of the gravitational field generated by the totality of the mass in the universe was causing the expansion of space-time to slow down.  The question of the time was whether the amount of matter in the universe was sufficient to eventually cause expansion to stop and be followed by a contraction, whether expansion would continue forever, or whether there was just enough matter to cause expansion to slow to zero asymptotically in infinite time. </DIV></p><p>Yes, I'm well aware of the history here, and this in fact was the "theory" that I was taught in school.  The term "dark matter" referred to nothing more than "unidentified mass", more along the lines of MACHO theory.  I actually never considered "standard theory' of that time to be the least be "metaphysical' in nature because it was based on known laws of physics, and what we didn't understand (how the thing got started), we just admitted we didn't understand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then evidence was found that indicates that the rate of expansion is accelerating.The accelerating expansion, if true, requires a substantial revision in the model for the Big Bang. </DIV></p><p>Yet "dark energy" has never caused *anything* to "expand" in a controlled experiment, so why stuff that metaphyscial bad boy into an otherwise perfectly good physical theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It requires something like the addition of a cosmological constant to general relativity (the lamda). </DIV></p><p>Einstein called the instertion of a constant into GR theory his greatest blunder.  He "cludged up" an otherwise perfectly good theory about the attraction process of matter with a constant "force" the he never identified, and we not even sure actually related to GR in the first place.  He regretted that move his whole life.  Never once did he stuff it with "dark energy" however.  At least he simply admitted that he had no idea what might cause the universe to say static, and he certainly never tried to explain acceleration with "dark energy".   Lambda-CDM theory is not based on GR theory, rather it is a metaphysically cludged variation of something Einstein called his greatest blunder.  Note that he never claimed that C was in any way related to "dark energy".  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This may be reflected in something like dark energy, causing a repulsive effect. </DIV></p><p>If "dark energy" had ever been shown to cause a "repulsive effect" or an acceleration effect, your statement might be phyiscally meaningful.  As it stands, from a skeptics perspective, it's like handwaving in the effect of invisible elves on matter because we all know that elves have a repulsive effect on matter.  How do I go about testing or falsifying that inviisble elves or dark energy exists in nature?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the bottom line is "we don't know".  </DIV></p><p>Then why not just say so instead of tellling students about the repulsive effects of "dark energy".  You can't demonstrate that "dark energy" has a repulsive effect on anything.  Claiming that "I don't know what drives acceleration" is totally different that claiming "dark energy has a repulsive effect on matter".   The first statement if physicallly true.  The second statement is false, unfalsifiable, untestable, and outside the realm of real physics.  "I don't know" is an acceptable part of science.   "Dark energy has a repulsive effect on matter" is not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Throwing rocks at the Lamda CDM mode because of this only demonstrates an inability to understand that "we don't know". </DIV></p><p>Throwing statements like "dark energy causes repulsive effects in matter" is not the same as claiming "I don't know".    "We don't know" is fine by me.  "Dark energy did it" is not.  Dark energy is a figment of your imagination as far as I can tell.  I have not idea why you would even state that "dark energy causes repulsion".  It doesn't.  It doesn't do anything because it doesn't exist.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Continually asking for  validated predictions in the face of "we don't know" is just plain silly.</DIV></p><p>Well then, why do Lambda-CDM proponents want EU theorists to make up some sort of creation event before they'll take the idea seriously?  You don't see that as a gross double standard?  You can stuff metaphysics into LAMBDA-CDM theory, but I can't just stuff metpahysical forces into EU theory.  When I say "I don't know" about some big picture issue, Lambda-CDM theorists claim their theory is "better" because it "predicts' these kinds of behaviors.  Of course it's "predictions" are *always* wrong.   For years the mainstream has been gloating about how inflation's "key prediction" has been verified.  Last year we found out that the physical universe is not homogenously distributed, rather it has gaping giant holes in it.  What then is the usefulness of inflation in the first place?  It is another of those metaphyiscal terms that ultimately is "I don't know".    </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is true is that by inserting a cosmollogical term into general relativity you can force the model to show accelerating expansion. </DIV></p><p>Stuffing math related to "repulsive elves" into GR theory, may in fact "show acceleration and expansion", but how in the heck might I verify that repulsive elves had anything to do with that observed phenomenon?  That math might be perfect, but what about the emprical testing? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whether or not that corresponds to the rest of reality requires physical observation, and there is no physical confirmation at this point. </DIV></p><p>So what makes it "better" than EU theory if you can't physically confirm that "dark energy"" even exists in nature?  What makes "dark matter" better than 'missing mass"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is why it is the Lamda CDM model and not an established theory.As far as the CDM (cold dark matter) portion of the model goes, this too has been explained to you before.  It is known that the observed matter in galaxies is unable to explain the gravitatinal forces necessary to keep them together under obsrved rotation and to keep galactic clusters together. And again "we don't know" why. </DIV></p><p>I know why.  You grossly understimated the mass in a galaxy by at *least* a factor of 2.  The galaxies are twice a bright as you tought, and they contain at least twice as many ordinary stars and standar mass as you thought.  I know one thing for sure.  "Dark matter" has absolutely nothing to do with your "missing mass", because it has never been shown to exist in nature.  It's not real.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If one postulates the existence of this stuff and puts it into a model driven by general relativity, you can get agreement with observation. </DIV></p><p>And my reaction to this metaphysical variation of GR theory is about the same reaction you'd have If I stuck "repulsive elves" and "fat invisible gnomes" into the same formula.   I might be able to get my formulas to come into agreement with observation, but my Lambda-fat gnomes theory would not be "better than" EU theory only because i got it to agree wtih observation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That does not say that it exists,</DIV></p><p>It doesn't exist!  Thats the whole point. You can't stuff metaphysics into GR and then claim that such a theory is in any way superior to any other theory.   Any theory that begins with "I don't know" is equally acceptable isnt' it?</p><p>If I came to you and stuffed my invisible repulsive elves and fat invisisible gnomes into a GR theory, you would not claim it is equal to Lambda-CDM theory, or would you?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More baryonic matter includes stars.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and a lot less "dark matter" is now needed to explain the "missing mass" from our previously flawed calculations.  So much for the need for "dark matter"" to explain "missing mass".  We just effectively doubled the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy, plus we added a bunch of dust around it too.  We don't need "dark matter" to explain this "missing mass".  There is no such thing a "dark matter", only normal mass that we have yet to identify.</p><p>We also effectively "bulked up" every single galaxy in terms of normal baryonic matter, including those distant   galaxies we observe that were presumably created right after the "Bang".  If we thought they were "mature" before, now that we know they are at least twice as massive in terms of stars and matierial, what does that do to the age of the universe calculations?  Nothing at all?  </p><p>The problem here is simple.  In school they taught me that the universe was "old".    By stuffing in a metaphysical inflation factor and now dark energy, they came up with an "age" of the universe.   When I was in school, they told me that it took "billions" (plural) of years for galaxies to form. Now we find out that we can see galaxies as far back as our technology can observe, and if we stick to the original age of the universe, then galaxies must have formed within the first "Billion" (singular) years.  If these distant galaxies are at least twice as "bulked up" in normal matter, what makes you think your age of the universe number is even remotely accurate?  Since the date itself involves liberal doses of metpahysics to come up with, it's just a form of "creationism" on a much longer timeline as far as I know.  "Inflation did it" is not an acceptable. emprically physically demonstrateable "explanation".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The central bulges are the crux of the problem.  Several articles I have read claim the central bulges of galaxies are likely more massive than originally thought.</DIV></p><p>So now the dark matter components of Lamda-CDM theory will have to revided downward, the baronic mass will have to be at least doubled, and Lamba-CDM theory will have to be revised in terms of how EM field effect the baryonic mass that was just added to the system.  The whole thing will have to be "revised" to postdict a new curve fit. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  I am open to be corrected. </DIV></p><p>I don't know  how to "correct" your faith in inflation or dark energy or non baryonic forms of dark matter.  I don't even have any evidence these things exist in reality in the first place!  I can only show you that as time goes by these placeholder terms for human ignorance are being replaced with real physical things, in this case normal baryonic matter (like the MACHO brands of dark matter that I was taught in school).   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do, truly, look at proving prevailing theories and models wrong as progress, but at the same time, I won't abandon them willy nilly on every little thing that challenges them. Give me something of substiance...  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The comment "give me something of substance" is really ironic from my perspective.  My whole complaint about these fudge factors is that there is no physical evidence that they even exist in nature. There is no "substance" to them to be found in any controlled experiment.  They utterly lack substance of any sort.  That's the whole problem with them from my perpsective.  EU theory has "substance".  It is based on real law of physics that are applied to real objects in space.  There is nothing of "non substance" beings stuffed into the theory only to make it fit some distant observation. That unwillingness to stuff an otherwise perfectly good physical theory with metaphysical constructs is not a weakness in the theory, nor is the answer "I don't know" an less "acceptable" than stuffing it with "dark energy" or "dark matter".</p><p>I don't even have a problem with you having faith in these things, as long as you recognize they are an act of pure faith, not a form of physical science.  It's the fact this stuff is being passed off as "physical science" that I find unbelievable.   EU theory is physical science, and it has been built upon emprical controlled testing since Birkeland first proposed the idea and tested his ideas in a lab.  "Dark energy and 'dark matter" and "inflation' are not a form of "physical science", they are a form of "faith" in metaphyiscal contructs.   A few days ago, some of those metaphysial constructs bit the dust (literally).

</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I attack Lamda-CDM theory as though it's an *untestable* and *unfalsifiable* piece of mainstream dogma.  I know darn well it's never been "tested" at all.   You can't test for 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' because neither of these things exist in nature.  It's a theory based not on testeable physics, but rather unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs.  </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">This is utter nonsense.  Untested and untestable are not the same at all.  There is quite a bit of work ongoing to find a way to verify the hypotheses of the Lamda CDM model, just as there is for other hypotheses.  The existence of the Higgs boson is, at this stage just a workable hypothesis.  Maybe the CERN experiments will confirm it.  Until then a competing theory, consistent with what has been proven, would be objectively evaluated.</font></p><p>I'm keenly aware that it was never "tested" at all."Best available hypothesis" by who's standards? IMO EU theory is a far superior theory because it is based on *testable* aspects of physics.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Sorry, but you have proved yourself to be completely blind to the overall body of physical theory,  EU is indeed testable.  It has been tested and found to be invalid.  Plasma physics is pretty well known and valid.  But extrapolating some small-scale descriptive demonstrations from the laboratory to large-scale astophysical statements that provide no non-trivial predictive capability is not good science.  It is in fact shoddy science.</font></p><p>The fact people make *inacurate guesses* with Lambda-CDM theory does not make it a "best" theory. Yep, it's 95% unvalidated, and 95% unfalsifiable too.   I can't demonstrate a negative, so emprical science is based on physically demonstrating the existence of something *before* making up a metaphysical mythos based on the idea.  Nobody demonstrated that "dark energy" could accelerate plasma before claiming "dark energy" was responsible for the phenomenon of acceleration.  You can't even test the idea because you have not idea where "dark energy" comes from, so it is physically impossible to test the idea or falsify the idea.   That one metaphysical construct makes up nearly 3/4 of the Lambda-CDM theory. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You are, as usual, completely and utterly, misrepresenting the issue.  The model merely says that IF dark matter and IF dark energy exist then the consequences for predictions using general relativity would be consistent with what is observed.  That in and of itself does not guarantee  that either exist.  There may be alternate explanations that would provide a similar result.  We just don't have any alternate explanations available -- and EU is not a valid alternative.</font> </p><p> The rest is mostly made up of "dark matter", which again is completely unflasifiable because it's never been demonstred to exist or have any effect on nature.    Yes, I'm well aware of the history here, and this in fact was the "theory" that I was taught in school.  The term "dark matter" referred to nothing more than "unidentified mass", more along the lines of MACHO theory.  I actually never considered "standard theory' of that time to be the least be "metaphysical' in nature because it was based on known laws of physics, and what we didn't understand (how the thing got started), we just admitted we didn't understand.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">And the hypothesis of the Lamda CDM model is basically only a proposal to fill in what we don't understand.  Everyone except possibly you seems to recognize that "we don't understand".  Even when you don't understand it is acceptable to make tentative hypotheses and then proceed to determine if they are true or not.  The old concept of the aether through which electromagnetic waves were supposed to propagate was such a hypothesis.  It seemed reasonable.  But it was eventually shown to be false.  Similarly the Lamda CDM model may or may not eventually be shown to be correct.  But unti that time it provides predictions that can be checked, and if the predictions are found to inaccurate then theory will be discarded or modified substantially.  That is how science works.   That is how Newtonian mechanics gave way to general relativity.  </font> </p><p>Yet "dark energy" has never caused *anything* to "expand" in a controlled experiment, so why stuff that metaphyscial bad boy into an otherwise perfectly good physical theory?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Because the otherwise perfectly good physical theory seems to be at odds with what is actually observed.  So either we need an error in the measurements of the observed phenomena or we need to change the theory.  </font> </p><p>Einstein called the instertion of a constant into GR theory his greatest blunder.  He "cludged up" an otherwise perfectly good theory about the attraction process of matter with a constant "force" the he never identified, and we not even sure actually related to GR in the first place.  He regretted that move his whole life. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Not quite true.  His regret stemmed from the realization that, based on the work of Hubble, the universe is expanding.  Einstein had originally believed in a static universe and a static universe requires a cosmological constant in order to exist stably.  It was that blind spot that caused Eiinstein to put in the cosmological constant, and thereby miss the opportunity to predict the expansion of the universe.  After seeing Hubble's results he saw his mistake and that was the source of his regret.  He went so far as to personally visit Hubble to thank him for the insight provided by his observations.</font> </p><p> Never once did he stuff it with "dark energy" however.  At least he simply admitted that he had no idea what might cause the universe to say static, and he certainly never tried to explain acceleration with "dark energy".  </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">Dark energy is really nothing more than an alternative expression for the cosmological constant.  It does not particularly matter what language you use to describe the phenomena, the result is the same.  </font></p><p> Lambda-CDM theory is not based on GR theory, rather it is a metaphysically cludged variation of something Einstein called his greatest blunder.  Note that he never claimed that C was in any way related to "dark energy".  If "dark energy" had ever been shown to cause a "repulsive effect" or an acceleration effect, your statement might be phyiscally meaningful.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Sorry, but you could not be more wrong.  the Lamda CDM model is an attempt to reconcile observation with general relativity.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I have no idea what you have in mind wiht the the statement regarding the relationship between C and dark energy.  I assume that by C you mean c, the speed of light in a vacuum in local coordinates.  If so I agree, it has nothing to do with dark energy, nor has there been any claim to the contrary by any responsible physicist of which I am aware.  Dark energy is a repulsive effect with regard to space-time.  That is the whole point.  We see a repulsive effect, we do not have an explanation for it, so it is given a name -- dark energy.  If you would prefer to call it Oscar, that would be OK too.  The problem is then to find a more fundamental description of Oscar.</font></p><p> </p><p>  As it stands, from a skeptics perspective, it's like handwaving in the effect of invisible elves on matter because we all know that elves have a repulsive effect on matter.  How do I go about testing or falsifying that inviisble elves or dark energy exists in nature?Then why not just say so instead of tellling students about the repulsive effects of "dark energy".  You can't demonstrate that "dark energy" has a repulsive effect on anything.  Claiming that "I don't know what drives acceleration" is totally different that claiming "dark energy has a repulsive effect on matter".   The first statement if physicallly true.  The second statement is false, unfalsifiable, untestable, and outside the realm of real physics.  "I don't know" is an acceptable part of science.   "Dark energy has a repulsive effect on matter" is not.Throwing statements like "dark energy causes repulsive effects in matter" is not the same as claiming "I don't know".    "We don't know" is fine by me.  "Dark energy did it" is not.  Dark energy is a figment of your imagination as far as I can tell.  I have not idea why you would even state that "dark energy causes repulsion".  It doesn't.  It doesn't do anything because it doesn't exist.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You are getting all humg up on semantics.  This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.  Best advice -- get over it.</font> </p><p>   Well then, why do Lambda-CDM proponents want EU theorists to make up some sort of creation event before they'll take the idea seriously?  You don't see that as a gross double standard? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">There is no double standard involved.  Electromagnetism is well understood.  If there is some large current flow through space then there should be a motive force generating it and directing it.  If it were to exist it would be easily detectable using standard methods.  The necessary and logical results of the existence of such a current are not detected, and would be is the current existed.  Therefore one concludes that it does not exist.  Perioid.  </font></p><p> </p><p> You can stuff metaphysics into LAMBDA-CDM theory, but I can't just stuff metpahysical forces into EU theory. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">EU theory is rampant with non-existent methaphysical forces.  For at least the third time I point out to you that if the Sun really was a giant neon light bulb powered by a current flowing through it from some source outside the solar system then there would be an enormous magnetic field at the surface of the Earth.  That magnetic field does not exist.</font></p><p> When I say "I don't know" about some big picture issue, Lambda-CDM theorists claim their theory is "better" because it "predicts' these kinds of behaviors.  Of course it's "predictions" are *always* wrong.   For years the mainstream has been gloating about how inflation's "key prediction" has been verified.  Last year we found out that the physical universe is not homogenously distributed, rather it has gaping giant holes in it.  What then is the usefulness of inflation in the first place?  It is another of those metaphyiscal terms that ultimately is "I don't know".    Stuffing math related to "repulsive elves" into GR theory, may in fact "show acceleration and expansion", but how in the heck might I verify that repulsive elves had anything to do with that observed phenomenon? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Your inability to handle mathematics is no reason for science to jettison a theory.</font> </p><p> That math might be perfect, but what about the emprical testing? So what makes it "better" than EU theory if you can't physically confirm that "dark energy"" even exists in nature? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Because EU theory has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with what is observed.  You might want to look at the papers to which links were provided by doubletruncation in another thread.  </font> </p><p> What makes "dark matter" better than 'missing mass"?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Same thing.  You seem to be really hung up on semantics.  </font> </p><p>I know why.  You grossly understimated the mass in a galaxy by at *least* a factor of 2.  The galaxies are twice a bright as you tought, and they contain at least twice as many ordinary stars and standar mass as you thought.  I know one thing for sure. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">And what might that really be?  The problem is that you seem to know only one thing for sure -- there is a mystical and enormous current flowing through the universe.  </font></p><p><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#0000ff">It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.  -- Mark Twain</font></span></p><p> "Dark matter" has absolutely nothing to do with your "missing mass", because it has never been shown to exist in nature.  </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">Rather by definition, it is the missing mass.  If and when we find it, it won't be dark matter any more.</font></p><p>It's not real.And my reaction to this metaphysical variation of GR theory is about the same reaction you'd have If I stuck "repulsive elves" and "fat invisible gnomes" into the same formula.   I might be able to get my formulas to come into agreement with observation, but my Lambda-fat gnomes theory would not be "better than" EU theory only because i got it to agree wtih observation.It doesn't exist!  Thats the whole point. You can't stuff metaphysics into GR and then claim that such a theory is in any way superior to any other theory.   Any theory that begins with "I don't know" is equally acceptable isnt' it?</p><p> <font color="#0000ff">No, absolutely not.  To be acceptable an alternative theory either must be consistent with currently accepted theories, such as general relativity, or offer a plausible alternative.  It must be consistent with everything that is observed.  It must not invalidate accepted theories in circumstances in which they are known to provide very accurate predictions.</font></p><p>If I came to you and stuffed my invisible repulsive elves and fat invisisible gnomes into a GR theory, you would not claim it is equal to Lambda-CDM theory, or would you? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Certainly not.  But I would take it as equal to EU theory.</font> </p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p>Suppose we just assume that the lensing data, and the movement patterns (that one is more controversial by the way) of galaxies demonstrate that there is "more mass" in a galaxy than we can account for by our current mass measureing techniques.</p><p>This week we learned that there is *at least* twice as much normal matter in a galaxy than we first believed.  I haven't yet read the paper (which I'll rectify shortly), but I presume that the 100% figure could have been significantly higher, if we were to make the dust belt thicker and asumed that it blocked more photons.  </p><p>Now is we know that at least some of our "missing mass" is found in extra stars and extra dust to absorb the light from stars.  Wouldn't it be a lot more logical to assume that the galaxies have *many more times* the amount of stars than we first suspected, and a lot more dust around them than we realized, than to claim that "dark matter" is any any related to the additional mass we are trying to explain?</p><p>How do you know that number of stars shouldn't be tripled or quadrupled, and the amount of dust shouldn't be increased accordingly?  What does the term "dark matter" add to our scientific discussion related to this "missing mass" we're trying to account for? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · May 17, 2008

<p style="font-weight:bold">"Yes, and a lot less "dark matter" is now needed to explain the "missing mass" from our previously flawed calculations."</p><p>And the problem is?</p><p style="font-weight:bold">"So much for the need for "dark matter"" to explain "missing mass"."</p><p>There's still plenty of missing mass in which we can apply the term 'dark matter' to. </p><p style="font-weight:bold">"We just effectively doubled the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy, plus we added a bunch of dust around it too."</p><p>Not sure if they quantified to the total amount.  Twice as bright doesn't mean twice the baryonic matter. </p><p style="font-weight:bold">"We don't need "dark matter" to explain this "missing mass".  There is no such thing a "dark matter", only normal mass that we have yet to identify."</p><p>The mass is there, it's the matter that is missing.  Dark matter = missing matter = unidentified matter.  When it is identified and no longer missing, we can apply a more relevant name to it.</p><p style="font-weight:bold">"We also effectively "bulked up" every single galaxy in terms of normal baryonic matter, including those distant   galaxies we observe that were presumably created right after the "Bang".  If we thought they were "mature" before, now that we know they are at least twice as massive in terms of stars and matierial, what does that do to the age of the universe calculations?  Nothing at all? "</p><p>I have found no literature on the subject that claims they are twice as massive.  The central bulges may be more massive and the dust clouds may be more massive in terms of detectable baryonic matter, but nowhere have I seen it claimed the the galaxies in their entirety are twice as massive.</p><p style="font-weight:bold">"The problem here is simple.  In school they taught me that the universe was "old"."</p><p>May be old by human standards, but the universe is actually quite young compared to estimates of what it's lifetime may be. </p><p style="font-weight:bold">"By stuffing in a metaphysical inflation factor and now dark energy, they came up with an "age" of the universe.  When I was in school, they told me that it took "billions" (plural) of years for galaxies to form. Now we find out that we can see galaxies as far back as our technology can observe, and if we stick to the original age of the universe, then galaxies must have formed within the first "Billion" (singular) years.  If these distant galaxies are at least twice as "bulked up" in normal matter, what makes you think your age of the universe number is even remotely accurate?  Since the date itself involves liberal doses of metpahysics to come up with, it's just a form of "creationism" on a much longer timeline as far as I know.  "Inflation did it" is not an acceptable. emprically physically demonstrateable "explanation""</p><p>I could be wrong here, but I think inflation and dark energy have very little impact on the overall age of the universe.  I think using Hubble's Law alone will get you to within a few 100 million years.  As for the 'bulking up', I've already addressed that.</p><p>The rest of your post is, again, agenda driven commentary.  Although, I did enjoy how you took my use of "substance" out of context to continue your ranting.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

derekmcd · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>Suppose we just assume that the lensing data, and the movement patterns (that one is more controversial by the way) of galaxies demonstrate that there is "more mass" in a galaxy than we can account for by our current mass measureing techniques.</strong>This week we learned that there is *at least* twice as much normal matter in a galaxy than we first believed.  I haven't yet read the paper (which I'll rectify shortly), but I presume that the 100% figure could have been significantly higher, if we were to make the dust belt thicker and asumed that it blocked more photons.  Now is we know that at least some of our "missing mass" is found in extra stars and extra dust to absorb the light from stars.  Wouldn't it be a lot more logical to assume that the galaxies have *many more times* the amount of stars than we first suspected, and a lot more dust around them than we realized, than to claim that "dark matter" is any any related to the additional mass we are trying to explain?How do you know that number of stars shouldn't be tripled or quadrupled, and the amount of dust shouldn't be increased accordingly?  What does the term "dark matter" add to our scientific discussion related to this "missing mass" we're trying to account for? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>To much dust would completely obsure the light from the central bulges no matter how bright they were.  Then only the dust would be seen in the infrared.  This isn't observed. </p><p>[edited to address bolded text]</p><p>Gravitational lensing is pretty accurate in determining mass as far as I know.  There is no missing mass.  The way I'm interpreting it is, the composition of the matter (both known and missing) is being adjusted, not the overall mass of the galaxy.  I could be wrong though. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

Universe twice as bright?

derekmcd

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

damskov

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

origin

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

spin0

Guest

spin0

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page