Universe twice as bright?

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">This is utter nonsense.  Untested and untestable are not the same at all. </DIV></font></p><p>Indeed.  How might I empirically "test" for "dark energy"?  Where does it come from?  How can I "control" the flow of "dark energy" in a controlled experiment?</p><p>Where does inflation come from?  How can I "control" the flow of inflation to verify it can do the things you claim?</p><p>Now, compare and contrast that with SUSY related forms of "dark matter".  In other words, I'll grant you that you may someday be able to physically test SUSY theories in a lab, and you may indeed be able to falsify specific particles when it comes to explaining "missing mass".    For instance, you might be able to create a SUSY particle, only to discover it has a half life of milliseconds and reverts back to normal matter, thus falisying that particular particle.</p><p>"Inflation" and "dark energy" are untestable, whereas SUSY theory is "untested".</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>Since "dark energy" makes up nearly 3/4th's of that theory, perhaps you could tell me exactly what ongoing work is being done to "test" that theory this week in any lab on Earth?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The existence of the Higgs boson is, at this stage just a workable hypothesis. </DIV></font></p><p>Indeed it is "untested", but there are ongoing efforts to test it.  What is being done to test for "dark energy"?  Keep in mind that particle physics theory is predictated upon an object with mass to create mass.  Any other known force of nature might explain distant observation of acceleration, so there is no particular need to create anything new simply to explain an observatoin of acceleration of mostly plasma universe. EM fields can emprically be shown to have such an effect on plasma in controlled experiments, so there is no need for "dark" forces to explain acceleration.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe the CERN experiments will confirm it.  Until then a competing theory, consistent with what has been proven, would be objectively evaluated.</DIV></font></p><p> </p><p>The difference is that particle physics theory *requires* a particle with mass to work properly.  Nothing but EM fields are *required* to explain the acceleration of plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>Exactly (be specific) parts of Birkeland's EU theories have been found to be "invalid"?  You're whistling Dixie with this kind of argument.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>Excuse me?  At worst case you could whine and complain that we can't be certain that the scaling factors will necessarily apply at a certain point.  You can't even show me that dark energy isn't a figment of your imagination, so please refrain from lecturing me about "shoddy science" when you point to the sky and claim "dark energy did it".</p><p>Scaling issues are in fact valid concerns as it relates to EU theory, but suggesting this is shoddy science is simply unbelievable considering the alternative.  "I don't know" is not "shoddy science".   "We might be able to scale plasma physics to many orders of magnitude" is not shoddy science, it has already been demonstrated to be true.  Whether or not it can be scaled to universal scales remains to be seen, but it's not shoddy science.    People who live in inflation and dark energy metaphsycal glass houses really should refrain from throwing stones.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><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. </DIV></font></p><p>That is no better than me claiming that *IF* repulsive elves and *IF* invisible fat gnomes exist, then the consequences for predictions using elf-gnome-GR would be consistent with what is observed.    Would you let me teach efl-gnome-GR to your kids in a classroom setting?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That in and of itself does not guarantee  that either exist.  There may be alternate explanations that would provide a similar result.</DIV></font></p><p>Indeed.  My elves and gnomes may not exist.  There may be other viable options. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We just don't have any alternate explanations available</DIV></font></p><p>You have several viable options to rid your theory of the metaphysics of "dark matter" without even going to EU theory!  We could simply suggest that there are lots of stars and lots of dust around galaxies and be done with it.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- and EU is not a valid alternative.</font></DIV></p><p>The only known force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity is an EM field.  The only logically scientific way to explain the acceleration of a mostly plasma universe is with EM fields.  The only useful features of your "dark energy" theory is that it explains acceleration of plasma.  EU fields are certainly a valid alternative to that single observation.  EM field accelerate the solar wind particles just fine.  I don't need "dark energy" to explain the acceleration of plasma.  From an Occum's razor perspective, "dark energy" isn't even a valid scientific option to explain acceleration in the first place. and it's certainly not a "simpler" more elegant explanation.</p><p>EU theory is not only a valid alternative, it's the *only* viable "scientifically demonstrated" alternative.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">And the hypothesis of the Lamda CDM model is basically only a proposal to fill in what we don't understand.</DIV></font></p><p>You can't "fill" a physical explanation with "metaphysical" constructs and have it remain a viable physical theory.  It's now an act of faith with a Genesis story that goes something to the effect of:</p><p>In the beginning was a singularity (well maybe, but we're not really sure) that got bored one day.  It decided it had had enough of being a single thing, so it decided to break itself apart and said "let there be light".  It "inflated" itself over and over again for six days (or three seconds of our time) and on the seventh day it rested.  It noticed that things were starting to slow down one day, and it didn't want that to occur, so the expanding signularity  created "dark energy" to accelerate the mass of invisible matter and normal matter, and it said "all is good". </p><p>How does anyone go about falsififying your Genesis story exactly, expecially since mass particles are limited to the speed of light in GR theory and the universe is physically larger than 27.4 light years accross? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></font><font color="#0000ff">Everyone except possibly you seems to recognize that "we don't understand".</DIV></font></p><p>You have that backwards.  I'm one of the few folks that realizes that your creation story isn't falsifiable, and we don't understand most of what goes on in the universe.  I just admit my ignorance and I don't try to stuff metaphysics into me mental state of ignorance.   If you don't understand it, how do you know it's not going to lead you right back to EU theory in the end? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even when you don't understand it is acceptable to make tentative hypotheses and then proceed to determine if they are true or not. </DIV></font></p><p>It is acceptable to make a tentative hypothesis when you can emprically hope to test the hypothesis.  "Elves did it" is not an acceptable hypothesis to explain acceleration of plasma unless I have some valid reason to believe that elves exist in nature and have some effect on nature. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></font></p><p>Except for the fact that your "dark energy" field is posited to be just like an aether field.  You have "expanding space" things going on, and the easiest way to do that is to suggest that space is made of "aether particles"" that are "expanding".  Your dark energy construct is in fact a form of aether theory in the final analysis.  If it physically exists in nature, then it must be a form of acceleration eather of some sort.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Similarly the Lamda CDM model may or may not eventually be shown to be correct. </DIV></font></p><p>Inflation theory has already been shown to be incorrect.  The universe has huge holes in it that defy the "predictions" of inflation.    At least 1/5th of your "dark matter" has been replaced with normal matter in just the last week alone.  The "mental problem" I have with dark matter is justified Doctor.  It was your metaphysical mental construct that bit the dust this week, not mine.   Parts of it have already been shown to be incorrect. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>I am sure that a new Lamba-CDM "light" model will emerge with more baryonic matter and less dark stuff.  It wil in fact be 5-6% less metaphysical than current theory, and I will be 5% more satisified with it as a result.  It will still be based on 90% metaphysical constructs, and thus it will never be superior to EU theory.  I have great "faith" in fact that Lambda-CDM theory will eventually give way to EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></font></p><p>So what's wrong with "I don't know what causes the plasma universe to expand?"  Why stuff in something that is unfalsifiable into what was previously a completely *physical* explaination of nature?  Can't we just admit we don't know what causes the unvierse to accelate or plasma particles in the solar wind to accelerate?  You don't think that maybe EM fields have something to do with these observations?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So either we need an error in the measurements of the observed phenomena or we need to change the theory.  </font></DIV></p><p>In the case of dark matter, we know that there is a *signficant* (minimum 100%) error in the measurements. The gap filler of "dark matter" was pointless when the error was in our *assumptions* about the amount of dust and mass in a galaxy.  The acceleration of plasma is most easily explain by EM fields, so why do we need "dark energy" again?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not quite true.  His regret stemmed from the realization that, based on the work of Hubble, the universe is expanding.</DIV></font></p><p>And once he knew that, he realized that there was no need for anything else to be stuffed into GR. It worked perfectly as he taught it to explain the gravitational attraction of mass particles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <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. </DIV></font></p><p>Great. Then I'll use the language "all pervasive EM field" since you don't care what I call it.

</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><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.</DIV></font></p><p>"Dark energy" and "GR theory" are not even remotely related!  One has a repulsive effect, the other has an attractive effect.  There is not even a valid point in stuffing a repulsive quality into a theory about gravitational attraction!  All you need are EM fields to explain acceleration and there's no point of stuffing the math related to EM fields into GR. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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.</DIV></font></p><p>Fine.  I'll just call it the "all pervasive EM field" and my theory stays within realm of testable physics.  You can call it Oscar if you like, but you should at least tell me how it might be shown that Oscar can do what you claim it can do.  I can at least show you that EM fields accelerate plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><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> </DIV></p><p>I will be happy to get over your semantics the moment that you quit accusing me of having mental problems for not believing in your unfalsifiable faith in Oscar the friendly dark energy ghost, and for choosing a theory that is based strictly on emprical science, not faith in Oscar.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></font></p><p>It's well understood to accelerate plasma too!  It's well understood to be 39 OOM's more powerful that gravity.  If there is a known force of nature that might explain acceration of massive ojbects, it's EU theory.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If there is some large current flow through space then there should be a motive force generating it and directing it. </DIV></font></p><p>And indeed that must be true.  That does not mean that I will personal be able to observe it from Earth!</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it were to exist it would be easily detectable using standard methods. </DIV></font></p><p>It is easily detectable in Rhessi images, Yohkoh images, SOHO images, Trace Images, STEREO images and Hindode images of the coronal loops in the solar atmosphere. It is dectable in the way that HE2+ is selectively accelerated over He1+ by 20 to 1, and the solar wind continues to accelerate as it approaches the solar heliosphere.  It is detectable in aurora.  There is nothing "undetectable" about it.</p><p>In fact, a "key prediction" of EU fields in the place of your dark energy Oscar field is that we should see a physical effect of EM fields on solar wind activity and in solar atmospheric activity, whereas Oscar the friendly dark energy ghost has never been accounted for in solar activity.   What useful prediction could you make with Oscar or "dark energy" that I might be able to physically test for in our solar system?  It does make up 3/4th of the unvierse, right?  It would surely have an effect on objects in a galaxy, right?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>The only way you could possibly come to that conclusion is to ignore aurora, ignore coronal loops, ignore solar wind activity, ignore the effect of an all pervassive field like 'oscar" on matter, and to close your eyes to most of what goes on in the universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">EU theory is rampant with non-existent methaphysical forces.</DIV></font></p><p>This is an OUTRAGEOUSLY *false* statement. It contains *zero* metaphysical forces.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>You keep insisting this to be true, but it is based on a series of flawed assumptions about the moving nature of charged particles.  You've simply ignoring the implications of where the Earth sites in relationship to the movement of the charge particles that make up the *huge* electromanetic field around the sun.  We're tucked inside of the Earth's EM field too.  You're choosing to oversimoply a physical process to a single math formula and ignoring all the complications of the physics involved in this process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Your inability to handle mathematics is no reason for science to jettison a theory.</font> </DIV></p><p>I never once claimed to have any problem with the mathematics.  It's when you start applying mathematics to Oscar the friendly dark energy ghost that I object.  it's not the math that's the problem, it's the metaphysical construct the math relates to that is the problem.  I jettison the metaphysics, not the math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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></DIV></p><p>I did look at those papers.  None of them mentioned the all pervasive EM field you're calling "dark energy".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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></DIV></p><p>No, I'm hung up on emprical science.   A huge chunk of your "dark matter" was just found to be located in baryonic forms of mass that your mathematical model did not account for.  I'm hung up on the fact that Lamba-CDM theory sutffs the "gaps" of our ignorance with metaphysical and useless terms that are not physically real.   It's not the fact you observe acceleration I object to, it's suggesting that the acceleration is related to "dark energy" I'm hung up on.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <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. </DIV></font></p><p>There is nothing "mystical" or "metaphysical" about EM fields.  You have an all pervasive "dark energy" field going on, and there is no way to falsify your theory.  At least my theory *is* in fact falsifiable if you can demontrate that no EM fields traverse the galaxies.  I can't even falsify your 'dark energy' theory because you never showed that 'dark energy' isn't a figment of your imagination, you can't tell me the source, and you can't tell me how to test for it.  At least we know that EM fields exist in nature and we can test for them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <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.</DIV></font></p><p>When you figure out the other problems with your mass calculation methods, you won't need dark matter at all.   Likewise when you realize that "dark energy" is nothing more than an all pervasive EM field, you won't need "dark energy" either.  The only difference seems to be that I put my faith in the emprical scientific method, whereas you seem to put your faith in what amount to placeholder terms for human ignorance that could ultimately lead you right back to EU theory in the end.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></font></p><p>You missed my point entirely.  My elf theory is not correct by virtue of the fact it mathematically fits the observations. You can't stuff metaphysical constructs into a physical science and see that as somehow "explaining"" anything.  There is still a real and emprically demonstrateable force involved in any sort of acceleration, and calling it "dark energy" is not resolving, nor it it identifying the real physical cause behind the phenomenon of acceleration. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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> </DIV></p><p>Gah. Talk about non responsive.   Let me try again.  If I take your "dark' terms and I insert the terms "dark magic" into those term into the math of your Lambda-CDM theory, what specifically better about Lambda theory over magic Lambda theory?</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'>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. [edited to address bolded text]</DIV></p><p>Ok, so suppose we make the stars five times more massive/abundant and we sprinkle in just enough dust to obscure all but 20% of the light? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gravitational lensing is pretty accurate in determining mass as far as I know. </DIV></p><p>It's pretty accurate as far as I know as well.   All this information tells me is that the current methods of determining the amount of mass in a galaxy are seriously under the real number.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no missing mass. </DIV></p><p>There is no "dark matter".  There is only "undidentified mass" at worst case.  Again, this simply tells me that even these newer methods that will come from this data will still be under estimating the amount of real mass in a galaxy by a significant margin.  I'd be much more inclined to believe that there is just more stars and more dust than we observe than I would be inclined to believe we need some new forms of matter to explain this observation of "unidentified mass".  If the original calculations could be off by at least 100%, then it's far more likely that the "unidentified mass" is in the form of bayonic matter found in stars and the dust around stars and galaxies.  There is no need for any forms of exotic matter to explain "inidentified mass.". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I gather you are correct in that respect.   I would also assume that the lensing data in particlar is an fairly accurate way to determining the amount of mass in a galaxy. The only difference is that I have no faith that any of the mass that is not accounted for yet will be found inside of "dark matter", because nothing like 'dark matter" has even been shown to exist in controlled experimentation. As far as I can tell, all that mass in those distant galaxies is to be found in the identified particles of particle physics.  </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'>...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),.. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No we did not.  Maybe you ought to read the papers.  Light attenuation need not involved a lot of mass.  Shade and mass are not closely related.  That is how a tent works.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Indeed.  How might I empirically "test" for "dark energy"?  Where does it come from?  How can I "control" the flow of "dark energy" in a controlled experiment?Where does inflation come from?  How can I "control" the flow of inflation to verify it can do the things you claim?Now, compare and contrast that with SUSY related forms of "dark matter".  In other words, I'll grant you that you may someday be able to physically test SUSY theories in a lab, and you may indeed be able to falsify specific particles when it comes to explaining "missing mass".    For instance, you might be able to create a SUSY particle, only to discover it has a half life of milliseconds and reverts back to normal matter, thus falisying that particular particle."Inflation" and "dark energy" are untestable, whereas SUSY theory is "untested".Since "dark energy" makes up nearly 3/4th's of that theory, perhaps you could tell me exactly what ongoing work is being done to "test" that theory this week in any lab on Earth?Indeed it is "untested", but there are ongoing efforts to test it.  What is being done to test for "dark energy"?  Keep in mind that particle physics theory is predictated upon an object with mass to create mass.  Any other known force of nature might explain distant observation of acceleration, so there is no particular need to create anything new simply to explain an observatoin of acceleration of mostly plasma universe. EM fields can emprically be shown to have such an effect on plasma in controlled experiments, so there is no need for "dark" forces to explain acceleration. The difference is that particle physics theory *requires* a particle with mass to work properly.  Nothing but EM fields are *required* to explain the acceleration of plasma.Exactly (be specific) parts of Birkeland's EU theories have been found to be "invalid"?  You're whistling Dixie with this kind of argument.  Excuse me?  At worst case you could whine and complain that we can't be certain that the scaling factors will necessarily apply at a certain point.  You can't even show me that dark energy isn't a figment of your imagination, so please refrain from lecturing me about "shoddy science" when you point to the sky and claim "dark energy did it".Scaling issues are in fact valid concerns as it relates to EU theory, but suggesting this is shoddy science is simply unbelievable considering the alternative.  "I don't know" is not "shoddy science".   "We might be able to scale plasma physics to many orders of magnitude" is not shoddy science, it has already been demonstrated to be true.  Whether or not it can be scaled to universal scales remains to be seen, but it's not shoddy science.    People who live in inflation and dark energy metaphsycal glass houses really should refrain from throwing stones.That is no better than me claiming that *IF* repulsive elves and *IF* invisible fat gnomes exist, then the consequences for predictions using elf-gnome-GR would be consistent with what is observed.    Would you let me teach efl-gnome-GR to your kids in a classroom setting?Indeed.  My elves and gnomes may not exist.  There may be other viable options. You have several viable options to rid your theory of the metaphysics of "dark matter" without even going to EU theory!  We could simply suggest that there are lots of stars and lots of dust around galaxies and be done with it.The only known force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity is an EM field.  The only logically scientific way to explain the acceleration of a mostly plasma universe is with EM fields.  The only useful features of your "dark energy" theory is that it explains acceleration of plasma.  EU fields are certainly a valid alternative to that single observation.  EM field accelerate the solar wind particles just fine.  I don't need "dark energy" to explain the acceleration of plasma.  From an Occum's razor perspective, "dark energy" isn't even a valid scientific option to explain acceleration in the first place. and it's certainly not a "simpler" more elegant explanation.EU theory is not only a valid alternative, it's the *only* viable "scientifically demonstrated" alternative.You can't "fill" a physical explanation with "metaphysical" constructs and have it remain a viable physical theory.  It's now an act of faith with a Genesis story that goes something to the effect of:In the beginning was a singularity (well maybe, but we're not really sure) that got bored one day.  It decided it had had enough of being a single thing, so it decided to break itself apart and said "let there be light".  It "inflated" itself over and over again for six days (or three seconds of our time) and on the seventh day it rested.  It noticed that things were starting to slow down one day, and it didn't want that to occur, so the expanding signularity  created "dark energy" to accelerate the mass of invisible matter and normal matter, and it said "all is good". How does anyone go about falsififying your Genesis story exactly, expecially since mass particles are limited to the speed of light in GR theory and the universe is physically larger than 27.4 light years accross? You have that backwards.  I'm one of the few folks that realizes that your creation story isn't falsifiable, and we don't understand most of what goes on in the universe.  I just admit my ignorance and I don't try to stuff metaphysics into me mental state of ignorance.   If you don't understand it, how do you know it's not going to lead you right back to EU theory in the end? It is acceptable to make a tentative hypothesis when you can emprically hope to test the hypothesis.  "Elves did it" is not an acceptable hypothesis to explain acceleration of plasma unless I have some valid reason to believe that elves exist in nature and have some effect on nature. Except for the fact that your "dark energy" field is posited to be just like an aether field.  You have "expanding space" things going on, and the easiest way to do that is to suggest that space is made of "aether particles"" that are "expanding".  Your dark energy construct is in fact a form of aether theory in the final analysis.  If it physically exists in nature, then it must be a form of acceleration eather of some sort.Inflation theory has already been shown to be incorrect.  The universe has huge holes in it that defy the "predictions" of inflation.    At least 1/5th of your "dark matter" has been replaced with normal matter in just the last week alone.  The "mental problem" I have with dark matter is justified Doctor.  It was your metaphysical mental construct that bit the dust this week, not mine.   Parts of it have already been shown to be incorrect. I am sure that a new Lamba-CDM "light" model will emerge with more baryonic matter and less dark stuff.  It wil in fact be 5-6% less metaphysical than current theory, and I will be 5% more satisified with it as a result.  It will still be based on 90% metaphysical constructs, and thus it will never be superior to EU theory.  I have great "faith" in fact that Lambda-CDM theory will eventually give way to EU theory.So what's wrong with "I don't know what causes the plasma universe to expand?"  Why stuff in something that is unfalsifiable into what was previously a completely *physical* explaination of nature?  Can't we just admit we don't know what causes the unvierse to accelate or plasma particles in the solar wind to accelerate?  You don't think that maybe EM fields have something to do with these observations?In the case of dark matter, we know that there is a *signficant* (minimum 100%) error in the measurements. The gap filler of "dark matter" was pointless when the error was in our *assumptions* about the amount of dust and mass in a galaxy.  The acceleration of plasma is most easily explain by EM fields, so why do we need "dark energy" again?And once he knew that, he realized that there was no need for anything else to be stuffed into GR. It worked perfectly as he taught it to explain the gravitational attraction of mass particles.Great. Then I'll use the language "all pervasive EM field" since you don't care what I call it.

"Dark energy" and "GR theory" are not even remotely related!  One has a repulsive effect, the other has an attractive effect.  There is not even a valid point in stuffing a repulsive quality into a theory about gravitational attraction!  All you need are EM fields to explain acceleration and there's no point of stuffing the math related to EM fields into GR. Fine.  I'll just call it the "all pervasive EM field" and my theory stays within realm of testable physics.  You can call it Oscar if you like, but you should at least tell me how it might be shown that Oscar can do what you claim it can do.  I can at least show you that EM fields accelerate plasma.I will be happy to get over your semantics the moment that you quit accusing me of having mental problems for not believing in your unfalsifiable faith in Oscar the friendly dark energy ghost, and for choosing a theory that is based strictly on emprical science, not faith in Oscar.   It's well understood to accelerate plasma too!  It's well understood to be 39 OOM's more powerful that gravity.  If there is a known force of nature that might explain acceration of massive ojbects, it's EU theory.And indeed that must be true.  That does not mean that I will personal be able to observe it from Earth!It is easily detectable in Rhessi images, Yohkoh images, SOHO images, Trace Images, STEREO images and Hindode images of the coronal loops in the solar atmosphere. It is dectable in the way that HE2+ is selectively accelerated over He1+ by 20 to 1, and the solar wind continues to accelerate as it approaches the solar heliosphere.  It is detectable in aurora.  There is nothing "undetectable" about it.In fact, a "key prediction" of EU fields in the place of your dark energy Oscar field is that we should see a physical effect of EM fields on solar wind activity and in solar atmospheric activity, whereas Oscar the friendly dark energy ghost has never been accounted for in solar activity.   What useful prediction could you make with Oscar or "dark energy" that I might be able to physically test for in our solar system?  It does make up 3/4th of the unvierse, right?  It would surely have an effect on objects in a galaxy, right?The only way you could possibly come to that conclusion is to ignore aurora, ignore coronal loops, ignore solar wind activity, ignore the effect of an all pervassive field like 'oscar" on matter, and to close your eyes to most of what goes on in the universe.This is an OUTRAGEOUSLY *false* statement. It contains *zero* metaphysical forces.You keep insisting this to be true, but it is based on a series of flawed assumptions about the moving nature of charged particles.  You've simply ignoring the implications of where the Earth sites in relationship to the movement of the charge particles that make up the *huge* electromanetic field around the sun.  We're tucked inside of the Earth's EM field too.  You're choosing to oversimoply a physical process to a single math formula and ignoring all the complications of the physics involved in this process.I never once claimed to have any problem with the mathematics.  It's when you start applying mathematics to Oscar the friendly dark energy ghost that I object.  it's not the math that's the problem, it's the metaphysical construct the math relates to that is the problem.  I jettison the metaphysics, not the math.I did look at those papers.  None of them mentioned the all pervasive EM field you're calling "dark energy".No, I'm hung up on emprical science.   A huge chunk of your "dark matter" was just found to be located in baryonic forms of mass that your mathematical model did not account for.  I'm hung up on the fact that Lamba-CDM theory sutffs the "gaps" of our ignorance with metaphysical and useless terms that are not physically real.   It's not the fact you observe acceleration I object to, it's suggesting that the acceleration is related to "dark energy" I'm hung up on.There is nothing "mystical" or "metaphysical" about EM fields.  You have an all pervasive "dark energy" field going on, and there is no way to falsify your theory.  At least my theory *is* in fact falsifiable if you can demontrate that no EM fields traverse the galaxies.  I can't even falsify your 'dark energy' theory because you never showed that 'dark energy' isn't a figment of your imagination, you can't tell me the source, and you can't tell me how to test for it.  At least we know that EM fields exist in nature and we can test for them.When you figure out the other problems with your mass calculation methods, you won't need dark matter at all.   Likewise when you realize that "dark energy" is nothing more than an all pervasive EM field, you won't need "dark energy" either.  The only difference seems to be that I put my faith in the emprical scientific method, whereas you seem to put your faith in what amount to placeholder terms for human ignorance that could ultimately lead you right back to EU theory in the end.You missed my point entirely.  My elf theory is not correct by virtue of the fact it mathematically fits the observations. You can't stuff metaphysical constructs into a physical science and see that as somehow "explaining"" anything.  There is still a real and emprically demonstrateable force involved in any sort of acceleration, and calling it "dark energy" is not resolving, nor it it identifying the real physical cause behind the phenomenon of acceleration. Gah. Talk about non responsive.   Let me try again.  If I take your "dark' terms and I insert the terms "dark magic" into those term into the math of your Lambda-CDM theory, what specifically better about Lambda theory over magic Lambda theory? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You know, in my years teaching and studying at universities, and working difficult technical issues in industry I have found an inverse relationship between talking and learning but a direct relationship between listening and learning.  You sure do talk a lot.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And the problem is?</DIV></p><p>The problem is the emprical side of Lambda-CDM theory is about to jump by 100% overnight. On the other hand, it' metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance will decrease significantly overnight.   My faith in emprical science has been rewarded, whereas your faith in placeholder terms for ignorance is eroding.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not sure if they quantified to the total amount.  Twice as bright doesn't mean twice the baryonic matter.</DIV></p><p>How might you get twice the photons without twice the baronic matter?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mass is there, it's the matter that is missing.  Dark matter = missing matter = unidentified matter.</DIV></p><p>We may both agree that the mass is there, but I see no evidence that any of it is "non baryonic" in nature.  As far as I know it's all normal matter that we simply underestimate by a wide margin.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When it is identified and no longer missing, we can apply a more relevant name to it.</DIV></p><p>In this case, the most relevant name is "baryonic mass".  There is no evidence that any of it is to be found in any sort of exotic type of mass.  MACHO oriented "dark matter" theories are not metaphysical in nature, where non baryonic forms of dark matter theory are metaphysical in nature.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have found no literature on the subject that claims they are twice as massive.</DIV></p><p>They have twice as many stars, twice as much hydrogen and are twice as large in terms of normal mass than we ever expected them to be, or thought they might be.  How do you explain that?  Why would they form so quickly into galaxies? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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."</DIV></p><p>They are twice as massive in baryonic matter as previously thought.  Maybe they are 5 times more massive in terms of baryonic matter.   Lambda-CDM theory will have to acount for that change, along with the fact that baryonic forms of matter are influenced by EM fields and they won't be able to 'fudge' as much anymore with exotic properties of matter.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You must be wrong about that because the unvierse is more than 27.4 billion light years across, and without some metaphysical fudging, GR theory insists that particles of mass cannot move faster than light speed.  Without the fudging going on with inflation and dark energy, the universe would necessarily have to be considerably older than 13.7 billion years old. </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'>No we did not.  Maybe you ought to read the papers.  Light attenuation need not involved a lot of mass.  Shade and mass are not closely related.  That is how a tent works. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Light production however is considered a function of mass and if you increase the brightness by a factor of 2, you'll need twice as many light sources (stars) to create that doubling of the photon output.</p><p>From the paper: </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The cosmic spectral energy distribution (CSED; e.g., Primack, Bullock & Sommerville 2005) provides a description of the current total (electromagnetic) energy output of the Universe over all wavelengths. In the ultraviolet, optical and near-infrared wavebands the CSED is dominated by starlight and <strong>its measurement can be used to constrain the current stellar mass density and cosmic star-formation rate</strong> as well as models of galaxy formation (e.g., Baldry & Glazebrook 2003; Hopkins & Beacom 2006). </DIV></p><p>If you intend to double your light source, you'll need double the number of light sources and double the number of stars.  How else did you intend to explain twice as many photons? </p><p> </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><strong>"Ok, so suppose we make the stars five times more massive/abundant and we sprinkle in just enough dust to obscure all but 20% of the light?"</strong> </p><p>The light from the central bulge heats up the dust.  This can be detected in infrared.</p><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071012105824.htm</p><p><strong>"It's pretty accurate as far as I know as well.   All this information tells me is that the current methods of determining the amount of mass in a galaxy are seriously under the real number."</strong></p><p>I still don't understand how this new info changes the overall mass.  Please explain your thought process on this. </p><p><strong>"There is no "dark matter".  There is only "undidentified mass" at worst case.  Again, this simply tells me that even these newer methods that will come from this data will still be under estimating the amount of real mass in a galaxy by a significant margin.  I'd be much more inclined to believe that there is just more stars and more dust than we observe than I would be inclined to believe we need some new forms of matter to explain this observation of "unidentified mass".  If the original calculations could be off by at least 100%, then it's far more likely that the "unidentified mass" is in the form of bayonic matter found in stars and the dust around stars and galaxies.  There is no need for any forms of exotic matter to explain "inidentified mass.". I gather you are correct in that respect.   I would also assume that the lensing data in particlar is an fairly accurate way to determining the amount of mass in a galaxy. The only difference is that I have no faith that any of the mass that is not accounted for yet will be found inside of "dark matter", because nothing like 'dark matter" has even been shown to exist in controlled experimentation. As far as I can tell, all that mass in those distant galaxies is to be found in the identified particles of particle physics."</strong></p><p>I fail to understand how one can have missing mass.  Missing matter, I can understand.  Mass and matter are not interchangeable.  Mass is determined by volume and density in the framework of classical mechanics.  You can't have missing volume or density.   If the mass is determined, but  there is not enough matter to account for the mass, then you conclude there is missing matter.  </p><p>If the mass estimates are wrong, then the amount of missing matter has to be adjusted acccordingly.  I'm sure it may happen in isolated cases, but if their estimatations, over the entire scope, of galactic masses are off by as much as you are insinuating, then there is something terribly, terribly wrong with, well... everything.  But I see no evidence of this, nor does this new dust model lead me to think there is. </p><p> <br /></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><strong>"The problem is the emprical side of Lambda-CDM theory is about to jump by 100% overnight. On the other hand, it' metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance will decrease significantly overnight.   My faith in emprical science has been rewarded, whereas your faith in placeholder terms for ignorance is eroding.</strong></p><p>I don't understand this statement.  I don't have faith in 'terms'.  I do have faith that as missing matter is identified, it will no longer be missing.  The term dark matter will be replace with something more relevant as it is identified. </p><p><strong>How might you get twice the photons without twice the baronic matter?"</strong></p><p>Photons are not emited over cosmological time scales at a predetermined, continuous pace.  Just a few object that change their luminosity without requiring more matter:</p><p>Our sun evolving into a red dwarf.</p><p>Cepheid variables.</p><p>Core collapse supernovae. </p><p><strong>"We may both agree that the mass is there, but I see no evidence that any of it is "non baryonic" in nature.  As far as I know it's all normal matter that we simply underestimate by a wide margin.In this case, the most relevant name is "baryonic mass".  There is no evidence that any of it is to be found in any sort of exotic type of mass.  MACHO oriented "dark matter" theories are not metaphysical in nature, where non baryonic forms of dark matter theory are metaphysical in nature."</strong></p><p>I won't disagree with you here.  This could very well be true.  In the meantime, however, there IS undedected matter.  One hypothesis is non-baryonic matter. </p><p><strong>"They have twice as many stars, twice as much hydrogen and are twice as large in terms of normal mass than we ever expected them to be, or thought they might be.  How do you explain that?"</strong></p><p>Who are they and do you have a source for this?  I'd be interested to read it.</p><p><strong>"They are twice as massive in baryonic matter as previously thought.  Maybe they are 5 times more massive in terms of baryonic matter."</strong>  <br /> </p><p>Are you guessing here, or do you have some source to back this claim up? </p><p><strong>"You must be wrong about that because the unvierse is more than 27.4 billion light years across, and without some metaphysical fudging, GR theory insists that particles of mass cannot move faster than light speed.  Without the fudging going on with inflation and dark energy, the universe would necessarily have to be considerably older than 13.7 billion years old."</strong></p><p>It's called the Hubble Constant which leads to the metric expansion of space and comoving coordinates.  The galaxies themselves are not moving through space at superliminal velocities... the expansion of space in between the two points are causing the distance between said points to increase at superluminal speeds.  No inflation or dark energy needed for this. </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand this statement.  I don't have faith in 'terms'.  I do have faith that as missing matter is identified, it will no longer be missing.  The term dark matter will be replace with something more relevant as it is identified.</DIV></p><p>Emprical science will eventually replace every single "missing" or "dark" elements of your belief systems sooner or later then, correct?  What makes you believe that any of the 'dark matter" of Lambda-CDM theory is not simple, ordinary "baryonic" matter that you're industry just can't accurately measure with their current techniques?  What makes you believe that anything other than an all pervasive EM field might cause a plasma universe to accelerate?   Why should I abandon my faith in EU theory and empirical scientfic methods, only because your industry doesn't like the terms "I don't know", and "electricity"?</p><p>From an EU perspective, I have the same reaction to Lambda-CDM theory as you might have to Lambda-Magic theory if all I did was replace the terms "dark" with the term "magic" inside every Lambda-CDM theory, and then had the audacity to try to teach it to your children.   The term "dark" and "magic" are meaningless terms because they in no way relate to emprical science, or isolate the actually physics involved.  Sooner or later the magic will be replaced with emprical science.  IMO that will certainly be EU theory, beccause EU theory is based entirely upon emprical science.  It is only a matter of time as I see it</p><p>I simply see no point in putting fancy placeholder terms on human ignorance and stuffing them into an otherwise perfectly good GR theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with repulsive, dark or magic forces, and has never been shown to have anything at all to do with repulsive force at all.  it's like stuffing santa-energy into mathematical calculations involving GR theory.  It's irrational behavior IMO, and it's certainly not emprical science.  If you want to stuff charge repulsion and EM fields into GR theory, be my guest, but at least stick to real physical science!</p><p>No such thing as "dark matter" exist in reality.  No such thing as "dark energy" exists in reality. These are placeholder terms for human ignorance that must ultimately be replace with "matter" and "EM fields".  It's really not a question of 'If", it's a question of "when".  Sooner or later astronomers will begin to understand why they underestimated the amount of mass in galaxies, but I know for a fact that none of that matter exists in the from of "dark matter".</p><p>Now when your industry then puts out papers about the half life of "dark matter", I start to cry foul.  It's one thing to claim you can't find the stuff.  It's another thing to claim that "I don't know where it is".  It's another thing entirely to start claiming it's found in SUSY particles and has a half life and stuff like that without ever even demonstrating that it exists!  That is simply not empirical science, it is metaphysics running amuck.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Photons are not emited over cosmological time scales at a predetermined, continuous pace.  Just a few object that change their luminosity without requiring more matter:Our sun evolving into a red dwarf.Cepheid variables.Core collapse supernovae. </DIV></p><p>Ya right.  This is the kind of logic that really worries me.  You just doubled your photon output. The easiest and most logical way to do that is to increase the number of stars in the galaxy.  Instead of taking the simple path to an explanation, you took the least likely path and the path that is least likely to ever explain your "missing matter problem".  Gah!  I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of irrational "foot dragging" that may leave you in the "dark" forever.    I'll stick to EU theory and simple emprical explanations thanks.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I won't disagree with you here.  This could very well be true.  In the meantime, however, there IS undedected matter.</DIV></p><p>No, there is "underestimated matter".  You simply underestimate the baryonic mass of galaxies.  I know that is the most "logical" and "likely" possibility, especially since we now have evidence that your industry underestimated by at least 100% already!   From my side of the aisle, it's like watching the metaphysics of Lambda-magic theory crumble before my very eyes.    Now if I could just get NASA to put out a paper about "discharges" in the the solar atmophere, I might get you to "see the light" as it relates to EU theory.  There's nothing "dark" about the universe.  There is only human ignorance to be found in these terms. They are meaningless terms and have no physical meaning.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One hypothesis is non-baryonic matter.</DIV></p><p>Neutrinos? Sure.  Anything else? Forget it.  Got a gram of it I can play with in an empirical experiment?  It could be magic matter too for all I know, but as a rule I require emprical evidence of something before I try to use it to explain something physical inside of physical reality.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Who are they and do you have a source for this?  I'd be interested to read it.</DIV></p><p>That was certainly the implication of the paper.  They talked about how the primary light source was starlight, and that these brightness figures were used to calculate the stellar population of a galaxy. They then turned around and demonstrated that there is twics as might light coming from a galaxy.   Increasing the stellar population would be the most logical resolution to that particular issue unless you intend to the change the whole nature of how these calcuations are made, only because you don't like the implication of where it leads you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Are you guessing here, or do you have some source to back this claim up?</DIV></p><p>You mean besides that paper and the fact you're still can't account for a lot of mass, and the only mass in emprical science is the mass we have identified already?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's called the Hubble Constant which leads to the metric expansion of space and comoving coordinates. </DIV></p><p>Please physically (not metaphysically) define the term "space".  Without a physical explanation, that statement is ultimately metaphysical mumbo jumbo, with fancy sounding words to make it sound cool.  What is "expanding space" and explain how you might demonstrate such a thing in a controlled experiment?   How is that any different than an all pervasive EM field, or any sort of "aether theory"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The galaxies themselves are not moving through space at superliminal velocities... the expansion of space in between the two points are causing the distance between said points to increase at superluminal speeds.  No inflation or dark energy needed for this. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>No.  Spacetime can "expand" as the objects inside of it move away from one another and expand away from one another.  "space" as you defined it is nothing.  It is simply a metric distance, and metric distances do not "accelerate objects". Show me "space" that ever expanded in a physical experiment that didn't involve a force of some kind.  This is the kind of "dogma" that really irks me, particlarly since it defies the laws of known physics.</p><p>If I had told my physics professor that the two object got further apart not because they moved, but because the "space" between them expanded, he would have failed me on the spot. </p><p> </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  This is the kind of "dogma" that really irks me, particlarly since it defies the laws of known physics.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Known by whom ? You ?  Maybe you ought to learn some more physicsm since it does not defy general relativity.</font> </p><p>If I had told my physics professor that the two object got further apart not because they moved, but because the "space" between them expanded, he would have failed me on the spot. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">Clearly then, your professor was not Albert Einstein.</font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still don't understand how this new info changes the overall mass.  Please explain your thought process on this. </DIV></p><p>This information increases the amount of indentified baryonic mass by a factor of two, and reduces the metaphysical "dark matter" fudge factor accordingly.  The reliance on metaphysical fudge factors is reduced significantly when attempting to explain the total amount of matter that is actually contained in a galaxy.   The amount of "identified" mass has increased by 100%, while the amount of fudging the numbers has decreased significantly.  It's the first step in a very long process that must eventually lead us back to indentified forms of matter.   Why in the world would you simply assume that any of that matter in a galaxy is not contained in currently identified forms of matter?  What unidentified form of matter exists in emprical science?  The answer is "none". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I fail to understand how one can have missing mass.  Missing matter, I can understand.  Mass and matter are not interchangeable.  Mass is determined by volume and density in the framework of classical mechanics.  You can't have missing volume or density.   If the mass is determined, but  there is not enough matter to account for the mass, then you conclude there is missing matter.  If the mass estimates are wrong, then the amount of missing matter has to be adjusted acccordingly.  I'm sure it may happen in isolated cases, but if their estimatations, over the entire scope, of galactic masses are off by as much as you are insinuating, then there is something terribly, terribly wrong with, well... everything.  But I see no evidence of this, nor does this new dust model lead me to think there is.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I agree with you about my sloppy vebiage related to "mass".  My bad.    I really need to proofread before I push the Submit button. </p><p>Your comment about the new dust model not convincing you that there is a serious problem with your industry however is very troubling IMO.</p><p>Even if we assume that all the lensing data is correct, and we have determined the amount of matter in a galaxy that is necessary to cause this type of lensing behavior, there is zero emprical physical evidence that any of this matter is contained inside of anything other than currently identified forms of matter.  There is no such thing as "dark matter".  It does not exist in emprical science.   Your "dark matter" is only matter that remains "unidentified at this time based on poor star density calculations".  The fact that they have already been shown to be off by 100% should trouble you greatly.  That's a lot by anyone's standards.   </p><p>The bottom line here is that "dark matter" does not exist in emprical science.  It has no "half life", nor does it interact with any matter, ever.  Its a figment of mathematical imagination.  It's as real as "santa-matter" or "magic matter" or "invisible evil matter".  Nothing like it exists in empirical physical science.   The fact that your industry understimates the density of stars populations and star masses in a distant galaxies is no reason for me to put faith in any new exotic forms of matter.  They don't exist in emprical science.   When someonce can show me that they do exist in emprical science, then I'll be happy to let you stuff them into math formulas related to GR.</p><p>I'll never let you stuff "dark energy" into GR either unless you have some emprical evidence that it's not a figment of your industry's wild imagination and it has anything whatsoever to do with GR.</p><p>Inflation?  Show me where I can get some because obviously it's the only "supernatural" energy source around.  No other vector or scalar field in nature can violate the first law of thermodynamics and increase it's volume exponetially many times over without a significant decrease in density.  I want to run my car with that stuff!  It's like Willy-Wonka's Everlasting Gobstoober of an energy source.  It's down right magical.</p><p>I don't ultimately mind if you want to believe in such things, but I mind that these things are being taught to my children in a public school under the guise of "emprical science".  It's the same exact reaction you might have to me trying to teach creationism to your children in a formal classroom setting and claiming it was a form of "emprical science".  I'm a huge fan of emprical science, so I have no need for creation theory, inflation theory, or Lamba-CDM dark stuff theories in the classroom.   In the past 30 years, astronomy has gone from being an emprical science, to being 95% metaphysical dogma, soon to be 90% dogma, and 5-10 percent real emprical physics.</p><p> </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 19, 2008

<p>Albert Einstein didn't teach any such thing!</p><p>Spacetime can expand because objects inside of it expand.   "Space" isn't even defined by GR. </p><p>Physically (not metaphysically) define "space" for me.  How exaclty (physically) does it expand?  How is that not another aether theory?</p><p>Objects in motion stay in motion and objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by some force.   </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Albert Einstein didn't teach any such thing!Spacetime can expand because objects inside of it expand.   "Space" isn't even defined by GR. Physically (not metaphysically) define "space" for me.  How exaclty (physically) does it expand?  How is that not another aether theory?Objects in motion stay in motion and objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by some force.    <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /> </p><p>Sorry, but he while he did not teach classes, he did recognize that general relaltivity will predict an expanding universe.  And he most certainly did eventually come not only to accept expansion of the universe but to embrace it.  He made his "greatest mistake" in incorporating the cosmological constant to provide for a steady-state cosmology.  You can find this treated in his paper "Cosmological Considerations for the General Theory of Relativity".  This definitely shows that he recognized that his field equations were consistent with an expansion of space-time. After Hubble discovered the data that supports the expanding universe (expansion of space-time) Einstein revised his equations to eliminate the cosmological constant and made a special trip to meet Hubble and to thank him for providing that insight.</p><p>You are even more incorrect in sayig that objects insde of space-time expand.  They do not.  In fact even space-time within massive areas, like our local group of galaxies, is not noticeably expanding.  It is only in the large that the expansion of space-time is realized.  Further, spade-time is most certainly defined by GR, in fact it is the central concept of GR.  GR is the study of space-time, the geometry of space-time and the effect of mass on the curvature tensor for space-time.</p><p>You really do need to learn some of this physics.  And you need to learn the mathematics that goes with it.  Space-time in physics is a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold.  Space time expands by action of a scale factor that defines distance.  That is not metaphysics it is mathematics.  Gravity arises from curvature in space time.  The curvature is described by a tensor.  That tensor is derived from the distribution of matter and energy (the same thing) through the Einstein field equations.  In general relativity the notion of gravity as a force disappears and is replaced by the notion of curved space-time and the geodesics that result from that curvature.  And THAT is how Einstein saw the universe.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Sorry, but he while he did not teach classes, he did recognize that general relaltivity will predict an expanding universe.  And he most certainly did eventually come not only to accept expansion of the universe but to embrace it.  He made his "greatest mistake" in incorporating the cosmological constant to provide for a steady-state cosmology.  You can find this treated in his paper "Cosmological Considerations for the General Theory of Relativity".  This definitely shows that he recognized that his field equations were consistent with an expansion of space-time.</DIV></p><p>Indeed, and they work perfectly just as they are in a simple expanding spacetime.  You aren't talking about his brand of "spacetime" however, you're talking about "space", and you never physically defined it, or explained how "space" expands".  You're not talking GR, you're talking "blunder theory" with metaphysical attributes".  He *NEVER* embraced any such thing, never heard about inflation, never heard of dark energy and he *never* claimed that "space" expands.</p><p>You dogded my key questions.  </p><p>Physically define "space" (because GR only relates to "spacetime").  How is "space" expanding in any physical sense?</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After Hubble discovered the data that supports the expanding universe (expansion of space-time) Einstein revised his equations to eliminate the cosmological constant and made a special trip to meet Hubble and to thank him for providing that insight.You are even more incorrect in sayig that objects insde of space-time expand.  They do not.  In fact even space-time within massive areas, like our local group of galaxies, is not noticeably expanding.  It is only in the large that the expansion of space-time is realized.  Further, spade-time is most certainly defined by GR, in fact it is the central concept of GR.  GR is the study of space-time, the geometry of space-time and the effect of mass on the curvature tensor for space-time.</DIV></p><p>We aren't debating "spacetime" expansion that in no way violates the conservation of energy laws, you said that "space" (undefined) expands.  Please demonstrate this claim.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You really do need to learn some of this physics.  And you need to learn the mathematics that goes with it.  Space-time in physics is a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold.</DIV></p><p>You aren't describing Einsteins "spacetime" manifold.  You said that "space" expands.  Nothing like "space" is defined by GR.  Please refrain from lecturing me about GR when you are clearly deviating from GR and have create a franken-gumby variation of it that in no way even resembles GR from a perspective of testable physics.</p><p>Stop dodging my questions now and physically define this "space" thing you're claiming is somehow 'expanding'.  <br />"space" is not defined in GR, only "spacetime" is defined by GR and "spacetime" only expands as the objects inside of it expand.   Expansion as Einstein taught it was simply a function of momentum and ,movement of objects with mass, nothing more.  You aren't talking about his version of GR at all, nor are you talking about the "expansion" that Einstein described.  His concept of "Expansion" was simply an "object in motion stays in motion" sort of expansion that was likely to be slowing over time due to the gravitational attraction of objects with mass.  You're way outside of GR, so please don't lecture me about GR.  If you're going to stuff term like "space" into GR, and not treat it as a simple metric unit as GR does, then you aren't descrbing GR. </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">?  Maybe you ought to learn some more physicsm since it does not defy general relativity.</font>  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Stuffing metaphsics into GR does defy GR.  If I put magic elf "expanding space" powers into a GR theory, that adds zero credibility to elf power and it defies the laws of GR because GR doesn't include "elf power".  The fact you "can" stuff elf power into GR doesn't mean you SHOULD stuff elf power into GR, and it doesn't mean that "elf power" does not defy the original GR theory.  Boloney. </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 19, 2008

<p>Your original statement was...<br /><br /><em><strong>"My faith in emprical science has been rewarded, whereas your faith in placeholder terms for ignorance is eroding."</strong></em><br /><br />I response in kind with...<br /> </p><p><em>"I don't understand this statement.  I don't have faith in 'terms'.  I do have faith that as missing matter is identified, it will no longer be missing.  The term dark matter will be replace with something more relevant as it is identified."</em></p><p>And you respond with a 5 paragraph diatribe of nothing but stuff you have repeated on many occasions.  I'm not going to respond sentence for sentence to these 5 paragraphs, but it appears you either don't understand the definition of dark matter, or you choose to manipulate the definition so as to fit your needs.<br /><br />The Wikipedia definition appears sufficient enough to make my point:<br /><br /><em>"In cosmology, dark matter refers to hypothetical matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies."<br /><br /></em>How, from that definition, do you infer that dark matter is a mythological, metaphysical, or otherwise a magical substance?  The definition clearly states it is hypothetical.  It also clearly implies, by stating "enough EMR to be detected directly", that we don't know.   Scientists have no issues with saying they "don't know" as you claim they do.  And I believe my statement above from a previous post clearly and logically follows with that definition.  I'm sorry if you don't see the logic in that.<br /><br /><strong>"Ya right.  This is the kind of logic that really worries me.  You just doubled your photon output. The easiest and most logical way to do that is to increase the number of stars in the galaxy.  Instead of taking the simple path to an explanation, you took the least likely path and the path that is least likely to ever explain your "missing matter problem".  Gah!  I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of irrational "foot dragging" that may leave you in the "dark" forever.    I'll stick to EU theory and simple emprical explanations thanks."</strong><br /><br />The original thought was that the dust concealed about 10% of the light... now it is thought to be 50%.   This does not imply doubling the mass of the galaxy.  An increase in energy does not require an increase in photons.  Only an increase in the energy of the photon itself.   Doubling the visible luminosity (which is not the case here) does not require double the mass.  I provided some basic examples of how this is possible and if that logic worries you, I don't know what else I can say.<br />  <br />Here's a snippet from the NY Times:<br /><br /><em>"The results also mean that there is about 20 percent more mass in stars than previously thought. But since stars make up such a small percentage of the universe to begin with — dark matter and dark energy account for 95 percent or so — it is a small adjustment over all.<br /><br />“Basically increasing the stellar mass in the nearby universe by 20 percent has little impact,” Dr. Driver said in an e-mail message from Scotland.<br /><br />The results will have more impact, he said, on comparative observations of nearby and faraway galaxies, where, he said, dust has not previously been taken into account."</em><br /><br />You can call it irrational footdragging, I'll call reading beyond  sensational headlines.<br /><br /><strong>"No.  Spacetime can "expand" as the objects inside of it move away from one another and expand away from one another.  "space" as you defined it is nothing.  It is simply a metric distance, and metric distances do not "accelerate objects". Show me "space" that ever expanded in a physical experiment that didn't involve a force of some kind.  This is the kind of "dogma" that really irks me, particlarly since it defies the laws of known physics.<br /></strong><br />I think in the context of metric expansion, 'space' is an acceptable term and the point I was making can be clearly understood.   Using the term space is more of a conceptual aid rather than something physical expanding which you clearly understand the semantics.  Space in this context can be defined as the increase in distance over time... hence the use of 'metric'.  It might be more useful to say "metric expansion within space".  More technical, It might be better to say that the co-moving  coordinates embedded within the framework of space-time experience a metric expansion within Euclidean space... but that's a mouthful. </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Indeed, and they work perfectly just as they are in a simple expanding spacetime.  You aren't talking about his brand of "spacetime" however, you're talking about "space", and you never physically defined it, or explained how "space" expands".  You're not talking GR, you're talking "blunder theory" with metaphysical attributes".  He *NEVER* embraced any such thing, never heard about inflation, never heard of dark energy and he *never* claimed that "space" expands.You dogded my key questions.  Physically define "space" (because GR only relates to "spacetime").  How is "space" expanding in any physical sense? We aren't debating "spacetime" expansion that in no way violates the conservation of energy laws, you said that "space" (undefined) expands.  Please demonstrate this claim.You aren't describing Einsteins "spacetime" manifold.  You said that "space" expands.  Nothing like "space" is defined by GR.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Absolutely incorrect. I dodged nothing.  In fact I answered your questions head-on.  I'm sorry if the mathematics puts you off but mathematics is the necessary language.  What I have described is precisely what is contained in general relativity. It is correct that Albert Einstein never heard of inflation or dark energy (he died in 1955 after all), but those notions are merely ideas being usedd to explain certain phenomena within the framework of general relativity and are not logically required for general relativity itself.  Einstein most certainly did incorporate the expansion of space and space-time into his view of the universe.  He did it publicly and clearly as previously noted.  He in fact embraced it.  Your facts are simply incorrect.  Period.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Space is part of space-time as formulated in general relativity.  Space-time is global 4-dimensional manifold.  In local coordinates one can talk about the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, related through the Lorentz metric.  So, if you like, in local coordinates space is a 3-dimensional subspace of 4-dimensional space time, and is the 3-space of our usual experience.  I'm sorry if you reject a definiton based on a mathematical description, but that is the way physics works.  If you reject mathematical descriptions, then you must reject in fact all of physics. In GR space is defined precisely as I have just described it to you. </font> </p><p>  Please refrain from lecturing me about GR when you are clearly deviating from GR and have create a franken-gumby variation of it that in no way even resembles GR from a perspective of testable physics.Stop dodging my questions now and physically define this "space" thing you're claiming is somehow 'expanding'.  "space" is not defined in GR, only "spacetime" is defined by GR and "spacetime" only expands as the objects inside of it expand.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Sorry, But what I have described is GR.  You clearly need to learn more about the subject for a discussion to proceed any further.  What I have told you is factual, and can be verified, but is not subject to meaningful debate.  That is simply the way that it is.  I can give you some references.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Probably the best source for general relativity is <em>Gravitation</em> by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.  Misner was a Ph.D. student of Wheeler, an expert on general relativity and emeritus professor at the University of Maryland.  Kip Thorne another expert in general relativity was also a PH.D. student of Wheeler and is the Feynman Professor of Physics at Cal Tech.  John Archibald Wheeler taught the first courses on general relativity at Princeton and consulted regularly with Einstein on the subject -- Einstein was at the time at the Institute for Advanced Study with adjoins the Princeton campus.  Wheeler's perceptin of general relativity is the same as Einstein's.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">If you find the mathematics in <em>Gravitation</em> a bit too difficult,  Then there are a couple of other books by these same gentlemen that might help.  The sections on relativity in Wheeler's book <em>Geons, Black Holes and  Quantum Foam</em> are pretty good and also give some some of Einstein's ideas.  Kip Thorne's book <em>Black Holes and Time Warps; Einstein's Outrageous Legacy</em> explains not only general relativity but also some far-out notions that may be consistent with it.  He is pretty clear about separating the far-out from the verified, but the expanding universe is clearly in the verified camp.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">If you want something by other authors, but still solid physicists, the Steven Weinberg's <em>Gravitation and Cosmology </em>or Wald's <em>General Relativity </em>are very good, but are mathematically demanding.</font></p><p> Expansion as Einstein taught it was simply a function of momentum and ,movement of objects with mass, nothing more.  You aren't talking about his version of GR at all, nor are you talking about the "expansion" that Einstein described.  His concept of "Expansion" was simply an "object in motion stays in motion" sort of expansion that was likely to be slowing over time due to the gravitational attraction of objects with mass.  You're way outside of GR, so please don't lecture me about GR.  If you're going to stuff term like "space" into GR, and not treat it as a simple metric unit as GR does, then you aren't descrbing GR.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Sorry, but you are totally incorrect.  Einstein's explanation of expansion is just as I have described it to you.  I am not only not way outside of GR I am actually was inside it.  Your use of the term "metric unit" indicates to me that you do not understand the term "metric" as used in general relativity.  It is a term that comes from the mathematical discipline of differential geometry. and differential geometry as formulated by Riemann is the basis for Einstein's general relativity.  I am indeed describing GR.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">For this discussion to progress at all you simply must become more familiar with what GR actually says.  This is not a matter for meaninful debate.  Is is factual information.  It is information that can be easily verified.  Try any of the books noted previously.</font> </p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stuffing metaphsics into GR does defy GR.  If I put magic elf "expanding space" powers into a GR theory, that adds zero credibility to elf power and it defies the laws of GR because GR doesn't include "elf power".  The fact you "can" stuff elf power into GR doesn't mean you SHOULD stuff elf power into GR, and it doesn't mean that "elf power" does not defy the original GR theory.  Boloney. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sorry, see predeeding post.  I know this comes as shock to you. but what I told you is correct.  It is also in keeping with Einstein's views after the Hubble data came to light.  You and Einstein are on different sides of the fence.  Now, maybe he was wrong.</p><p>In pont of fact, without stuffing a cosmological constant into general relativity you are FORCED to accept an expanding universe.  That is exactly what Einstein did in his paper "Cosmological Considerations for the General Theory of Relativity".  And if you accept the use of cosmological constants, then you must have no objection to "dark energy" since "dark energy" is reflected in cosmological theories precisely as a cosmological constant.  I personally am reserving judgment on that notion, but you are free to accept it if you wish.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Wikipedia definition appears sufficient enough to make my point:"In cosmology, dark matter refers to <strong>hypothetical matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly</strong>, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies."</p><p>How, from that definition, do you infer that dark matter is a mythological, metaphysical, or otherwise a magical substance? </DIV></p><p>I bolded the metaphysical part for you.  In this case there was no hypothetical form of matter involved, certainly not one that had mythical "qualities like not emitting or absorbing light.  In fact it is the fact that matter absorbs light and your old methods didn't account for that factor which got you in trouble in the first place.  Astronomers are not assigning hypothetic invisible qualities to a form of matter that has never been demonstrated to exist in nature.  It's like claiming invisible unicorns don't emit or aborb light.  How might I emprically test the concept out in a lab? Got a gram of this stuff I might play with? </p><p>The problem was not that new forms of matter existed that did not emit or absorb light, quite the opposite was true.  The matter absorbed the light and you didn't account for it.  </p><p>There is no "hypothetical form of matter" that has the qualities you describe.  Nothing like that exists in emprical nature.  It's DOGMA, not science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The definition clearly states it is hypothetical.</DIV></p><p>Hypothetical is right.  You've created a hypothetical form of matter tha doesn't exist, just like inflation, and just like monopoles and just like dark energy.  None of these things exist in nature.  Stuffing them into a math formula takes us out of the realm of empirical physical science and into the realm of "make believe" and "imagination".  In this case, this "make believe" form of matter shed no light whatsoever on the real problem and the real problem had nothing whatsoever to do with this hypothethical entity nor with invisible pixie dust.</p><p>Hypothesis that are based on emprical scientific evidence are one thing.  Hypothesis that are based on unevidenced entities is not science, it is pseudoscience and is ultimately unfalsifiable.  in science the onus of responsibility always falls to the individual making the claim, and you have never demonstrate that invisible stuff exists in nature.</p><p>I'm just the messenger here.  Your methods were flawed and the unidentified matter does absorb and emit light.</p><p>Mind you I've read articles about how this invisible stuff has a half life and all other kinds of "qualities" that have never been emprically demonstrated.  These astrronmers then point to the sky and slap some math to the idea and claim that their math formula demonstrates that elves have wings.  I mean the more that times goes by, the more qualities are being slapped onto this hypothetical entity and it is absolutely unfalsifiable.  it's pure pseudoscience being misrepreseted as empircial science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It also clearly implies, by stating "enough EMR to be detected directly", that we don't know.   Scientists have no issues with saying they "don't know" as you claim they do. </DIV></p><p>That hasn't been my experience.  They tend to herd the crowd into Lambda-BB theory and pass it off as science. Anyone that questions their authority is banned (not here fortunately), belittled, personally attacked and all with an attitude of smug "scientific" superiority.  It's smug psuedoscientific nonsense.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And I believe my statement above from a previous post clearly and logically follows with that definition.  I'm sorry if you don't see the logic in that.</DIV></p><p>I don't see the logic of creating a new form of matter that doesn't emit or absorb light only because you folks can't figure out what's wrong with your calculations.  It's illogical to suggest that any new forms of matter or necessary to explain these observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The original thought was that the dust concealed about 10% of the light... now it is thought to be 50%.  </DIV></p><p>Ya, but maybe near the core it's 99%.  I have no real way to know.   I can't get there to see what's going on.  I can only posit logical options, and mythical forms of matter with unique and unfalsifiable properties isn't a scientific option. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This does not imply doubling the mass of the galaxy.</DIV></p><p>It *completely* depends on how one *subjectively* chooses to "interpret" the data.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> An increase in energy does not require an increase in photons.  Only an increase in the energy of the photon itself. </DIV></p><p>Brightness as it relates to light typically implies quantity, distance and total photon output.  It doesn't just suggest an increase in the wavelength skewed toward a higher energy range.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Doubling the visible luminosity (which is not the case here) does not require double the mass. </DIV></p><p>This all depends on how you choose to look at it though, doesn't it?  I mean the easiest way to explain a galaxy that is twice as bright in starlight is to simply increase the number of stars.  It's not "illogical" to interpret it that way, expecially since you can't account for a whole bunch of missing matter.  The most logical solution here is that you grossly underestimated the number of stars and solar systems in a galaxy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I provided some basic examples of how this is possible and if that logic worries you,</DIV></p><p>It worries me because it's not the easiest solution.  It's not the simplest solution.  Didn't they teach you folks Occums razor principles?   You're missing a bunch of matter you can't account for in your methods.  Here is evidence that allows you to double your accounted for mass in an instant, and you choose to ignore that obvious option for one that involves the least likely possible scenario, mainly because you seem loathe to admit you're old methods were broken, and they grossly understimated the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know what else I can say.  Here's a snippet from the NY Times:"The results also mean that there is about 20 percent more mass in stars than previously thought.</DIV></p><p>This number is a pure guestimation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But since stars make up such a small percentage of the universe to begin with — dark matter and dark energy account for 95 percent or so — it is a small adjustment over all.</DIV></p><p>Shrug.  When you spew dogma like that related to hypothetical forms of matter and energy, I can't help but shrug.   Your belief system that presuposes that 95% of the unvierse is "dark" is pure mathematical mythos.  It lacks emprical support every bit as much as creationist lacks emprical support.  "dark energy did it" is not a scientific explanation for an observation of acceleration.  You've never emprically demonstrated that non light emitting new forms of matter exist or that "dark energy" exists in nature, so stating that these things make up the vast majority of universe is made up these things is purely an act of faith on your part.  I have no faith that your statement is true in the first place because you have never emprically demonstrated it to be true.  It's a dogma slogan, a subjective act of faith, not an emprically demonstrated scientific fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think in the context of metric expansion, 'space' is an acceptable term</DIV></p><p>There is no such thing as "metric expansion", and the term "space" is a metaphysical label that lacks a physical definition.   Since it is not physically defined, it is a purely metaphysical term.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the point I was making can be clearly understood. </DIV></p><p>The only thing that is clearly understood in GR is that objects made of mass cannot possibly move faster than light, and metric distances do not expand, only physical objects, and the gravitational fields that surround them do that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Using the term space is more of a conceptual aid rather than something physical expanding which you clearly understand the semantics.</DIV></p><p>Your semantics are metaphysical in nature.  You'll have to be physically specific about the nature of "space" and you'll have to explain exactly was is "expanding" in this "space" for it to be considered physical science.  In GR, only light and objects made of mass and the manifold around these objects "expand".  Metric distances do not expand.  That's why I would have been failed for making that claim to my physics teachers.  It would violate the known laws of physics if the metric distances between two or more objects just "epanded" without any movement of the objects in the manifold.   It's ultimately a violation of the conservation of energy laws because if you moved these distances, you would increase the amount of potential energy in the system and you have not accounted for it in any physical way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Space in this context can be defined as the increase in distance over time... hence the use of 'metric'.  It might be more useful to say "metric expansion within space". </DIV></p><p>I don't find this definition helpful because you provided me with no physical explaination for this metric expansion, and you now have particles made of mass traveling away from each other at faster than light speeds.  This is an "extraordinary" claim as it relates to "standard" (as Einstein taught it) GR theory.  As such, it requires "extraordinary support" based on emprical testing.   You skipped that step entirely I'm afraid, so I have no confidence that matric space expands as you believe it does.  Unless you can demonstrate this claim emprically, it's a statement of faith, not a part of emprical science, or a part of GR theory.  It is in fact beyond the scope of falsification, and beyond the scope of emprical science.   It would be the equivilant of my claiming that "God waved his hand and caused metric space to expand".  Would you suggest that is a statement of faith on my part, or emprical science related to GR?</p><p> </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 19, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><p><font color="#0000ff">Absolutely incorrect. I dodged nothing.  In fact I answered your questions head-on.  </DIV></font></p><p>No, you didn't.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sorry if the mathematics puts you off but mathematics is the necessary language.</DIV></font></p><p>This has nothing whatsoever to do with math.  The math does not put me off.  Your hypothetical entities you're stuffing into the math are what put me off.   If you stuffed elves into a GR constant, I'd feel exactly the same way. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I have described is precisely what is contained in general relativity.</DIV></font></p><p>No, it's not.  GR as Eistein destribed it did not have a dark energy constant.  You stuff that in all on your own, and you did it without a shred of emprical support.<br /> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is correct that Albert Einstein never heard of inflation or dark energy (he died in 1955 after all), but those notions are merely ideas being usedd to explain certain phenomena within the framework of general relativity and are not logically required for general relativity itself. </DIV></font></p><p>Bingo.  GR has no need of dark things, inflation, or any sort of metaphysical entities.  It works perfectly as Einstein taught it. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein most certainly did incorporate the expansion of space and space-time into his view of the universe. </DIV></font></p><p>Yes, but not the expansion of "metric space", dark energy, inflation, elves, gnomes or magic.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He did it publicly and clearly as previously noted.  He in fact embraced it.  Your facts are simply incorrect.  Period.</DIV></font></p><p>He embraced the expansion of objects of mass and light in spacetime.   At no point did he embrace superluminal expansion rates, dark energy or inflation. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Space is part of space-time as formulated in general relativity.  Space-time is global 4-dimensional manifold.</DIV></font></p><p>The manifold is "spacetime" and it is a manifold formed by particles of matter than can indeed expand.  "Space" you're defining it was simply a metric distance in GR theory and had no dark energy component, no superluminal components, and no constants.  You're ignoring these points, making extraordary claims about GR, stuffing these formulas full of things you can't even emprically demonstrate exists in nature, and claiming it to be "science".  It's not.  It's metaphysics with a nifty looking wrapper that you pilfered from Einstein and he called it his greatest blunder the moment he realized the unvierse was expanding.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Sorry, But what I have described is GR. </DIV></font></p><p>That is a false statement.  GR as Einstein taught it had no dark energy components or superluminal components of any sort.   It had no constants, and no metric expansion of "space", only expansion of objects in spacetime.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You clearly need to learn more about the subject for a discussion to proceed any further.  What I have told you is factual, and can be verified, but is not subject to meaningful debate.  That is simply the way that it is.  I can give you some references.</DIV></font></p><p>Show me a reference from Einstein that involved dark energy, inflation a constant, or magic and I'll be happy to believe you.  Unfortunately I know too much about history to believe you'll ever be able to do that.    You are not describing "GR", you are describing Gumby-Lambda-metaphysical GR.   They are not the same things.  I was taught GR, and I have no problem with GR.  I only have a problem with Gumby-metphysical-push-me-pull-you-space-expanding-dark-energy theory, which isn't even remotely like the GR that Einstein taught his students.  You're simply ingnoring the metaphysical add-in's.  I'm not.  No amount of appeals to authority are going to cut it.  I've got no problem with GR as Einstein taught it.  I've got a problem with what you're doing it, and what you're stuffing into it, just as you might feel if I stuffed in magic energy into Einstein's GR theory so I too could reach superliminal speeds.  It's not the math here that I need help with, or starndard GR theory that I need help with.  I need to see emprical evidence that dark energy and inflation are not figments of your imagination before I let you stuff them into GR theory.  Do you see that distiction? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you find the mathematics in <em>Gravitation</em> a bit too difficult, </DIV></font></p><p>Once again, let me repeat:  I have no problem with the math.  I have a problem with you stuffing elves and magic into GR difficult to swallow.  If you could emprically demonstrate that dark energy exists in nature, I'd be happy to let you stuff it into a GR formula and I would not complain.  It's the fact you didn't emprically demonstrate anything before you butchered up his GR theory that I resent.    It's not the math I reject, it's the invisible friends and metaphysical add-on that I reject.   I ask you again now if comprehend the nature of my rejection of your idea?  It's important that you comprehend this distinction because there is no point in going around this appeal to authority carousel any longer.  I need emprical support that dark energy exists in nature, not help with the math. </p><p> </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry, see predeeding post.  I know this comes as shock to you. but what I told you is correct.  It is also in keeping with Einstein's views after the Hubble data came to light.  You and Einstein are on different sides of the fence. </DIV></p><p>False.  Einstein called your Lambda constant his greatest blunder.  My opinions on expansion are just like his and in no way involved anything other than momentum of mass.  There were no dark energy components to Einsteins' brand of GR or his views on expansion. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, maybe he was wrong.</DIV></p><p>And if he was wrong about blunder theory, you are obligated to demonstrate it before you cludge up his otherwise beautiful physics formulas with metaphysical add-ons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In pont of fact, without stuffing a cosmological constant into general relativity you are FORCED to accept an expanding universe. </DIV></p><p>Nobody denies that fact.  With a cosmological constant however, you are now stepping outside of GR theory, something Einstein called his greatest blunder. </p><p>I don't have any problem with GR as Einstein taught it.  I have a problem with "dark energy" being stuffed into it because you have never shown that dark energy has any effect on objects with mass.  If I stuffed magic into that constant you'd complain too.</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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>False.  Einstein called your Lambda constant his greatest blunder.  My opinions on expansion are just like his and in no way involved anything other than momentum of mass.  There were no dark energy components to Einsteins' brand of GR or his views on expansion. And if he was wrong about blunder theory, you are obligated to demonstrate it before you cludge up his otherwise beautiful physics formulas with metaphysical add-ons.Nobody denies that fact.  With a cosmological constant however, you are now stepping outside of GR theory, something Einstein called his greatest blunder. I don't have any problem with GR as Einstein taught it.  I have a problem with "dark energy" being stuffed into it because you have never shown that dark energy has any effect on objects with mass.  If I stuffed magic into that constant you'd complain too. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Personally I have a problem with dark energy myself.  But Einstein did in fact invoke a cosmological constant, and in principle dark energy and a cosmological constant are the same thing.  In fact in the Lamda CDM theory that you dislike. dark energy is explicitly identified with a cosmological constant.  Since you want a reference, I give it to you once more.  "Cosmological Considerations for the General Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein.  He did in fact invoke in that paper "dark energy" by another name to make a static universe stable.  And he called it his greatest blunder when, based on the work of Hubble, he came to accept that the universe is indeed expanding.   And per his theory of relativity it is indeed the space-time manifold that is expanding.  </p><p>However, Einstein's conception of gravitation and expansiosn of space-time had nothing to with the momentum of mass.  Your statement in that regard is quite simply wrong.</p><p>Now, this is really simple.</p><ul><li>Your current arguments are in direct disagreement with general relativity, which does not depend on dark matter, dark energy, or dark anything.  So forget about dark energy.  It is not necessary for general relativity or for an expanding universe.  But I have told you this before, and it falls on deaf ears.</li><li>You fail to recognize the above fact because you do not understand general relativity.</li><li>I have given you several technical references on the subject, written by experts in the matter.  And while it took the creativeness of Einstein to formulate general relativity, there are many people with an understanding of the eventual theory who understand it as well as he understood it.  The people who wrote the references are in that class, and what they write is in complete agreement with general relativity as Einstein understood it.  Most of them are students of John Archibald Wheeler, who first taught the first courses on general relativity at Princeton, and was able to consult with Einstein in that endeavor.  You don't have to take their word either, since their books provide rigorous derivations of the equations of general relativity and can show how expansion is a necessary of general relativity if there is no cosmological constant.</li><li>If you don't like those references here is one more: <em>Feynman Lectures on Gravitation.</em> Feynman was also a student Wheeler, arguably his best student.  </li><li>You have been presented with several quantitative and factual arguments in this an two other threads.  You have either ignored them or twisted them beyond recognition.  In no case have you responded with an quantitative counter-point.  As reference I point to the two other threads.  If you can't recognize` the examples there then I just can't help you.</li><li>Arguments that reject establlished principles such a general relativity out of hand, particularly by deliberately i restating it inaccurately to fit your own misconceptions are illogical and silly, and above all factually wrong.</li><li>This discussion has become quite silly.  It is silly to continue to argue the facts of what general relativity says.  Until you take the time to actually learn some physics this discussion will, if it goes on, continue to be silly.  I have no desire to participate in a silly enterprise.</li></ul><p>So, until you take the time to read one or two of the references that have been provided and thereby to learn some physics so that we can discuss issues in the framework of established physical law -- that is general relativity and electrodynamics -- there is no point to further dialogue.  It would be just plain silly.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Personally I have a problem with dark energy myself.  But Einstein did in fact invoke a cosmological constant, </DIV></p><p>At no point did Einstein's constant result in "superluminal" speeds of objects made of mass. That issue itself is enough to make anyone who understands GR take pause before jumping into the deap end into metaphysics.</p><p>Einstein never described the nature of any constant and it could just as easily represent charge repulsion and/or EM field expansion, and things that are ultimately unrelated to core GR theory which is why he ultimately tossed it out of GR theory to begin with.  What I object to is the fact Lambda -CDM theory didn't stick with any known forces of nature, it created a metaphysical process and called it "dark energy".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and in principle dark energy and a cosmological constant are the same thing. </DIV></p><p>I strongly disagree.  Einstein's blunder theory never tried to reach superluminal speeds.   In his brand of GR theory, no object made of mass could or would do that, with our without an expanding aether component.  You're making it do tricks he never tried to make it do. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact in the Lamda CDM theory that you dislike. dark energy is explicitly identified with a cosmological constant.</DIV></p><p>Hence my consumer dissatisfaction with Lambda theory.  Dark energy doesn't exist, therefore there is no legitimate reason to associate C with "dark energy".  Dark energy doesn't even exist, so why stuff it into a constant that Einstein called his greatest blunder and then try to make it do supernatural things? This isn't logical from my perspective.  I have the same reaction you might have if I tried to stuff magic into C.  Magic doesn't exist, so why build a mathmatical construct around magic?  Charge repulsion exists.  I'd like you stuff that into C.  I'd let you stuff an all pervasive EM field in there too because EM fields exist in nature.  "Dark energy" does not exist, thus any math formulat related to it is simply mathematical mythos, not emprical science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>]Since you want a reference, </DIV></p><p>I don't want a reference to a theory or a math formula, I want a reference from an emprical test that demonstrates that 'dark energy' does anytihng to any form of matter in a controlled experiment.  If you can't do that, then I view your theory like you might view a creationist theory that lacks emprical support.  It's simply not science, it's unfalsifiable pseudoscience with fancy mathematical window dressing. </p><p>When you keep insisting that I "read' more about your metaphysical math formula I can't help but notice how blatently you're dodging the main point with this ruse.  The problem was never that I didn't understand that you stuffed "dark energy" into an otherwise perfectly good physics formula, or that there was a problem with the math. The math related to magic is pointless until you emprically demonstrate that magic does have the effect you claim it has on nature.  If you can't demonstrate that magic exists, then no math formula related to magic is going to be a form of emprical science.  It will forever be a magic act, not emprical science.  Likewise, I am not even interested in understanding you math about magic inflation, magic dark energy, or magic dark matter.   I need emprical evidence that they exist in nature from a real science experiment, not another computer model to look at.  Why do you keep blatently ignoring that issue, and keep pointing me to more math theories about your faith in dark energy?  How would you feel if I told you to go read more book on magic cosmology theory and I provided you with references?  It's not the math I reject.  It's the lack of emprical support for "dark energy" that makes me reject the whole concept of "dark energy", just as I would reject a formula about "magic".  It's not a math problem, or a lack of understanding the math.  Magic math doesn't exist in reality.  Likewise dark energy math isn't real.  It's a mathematical mythos related to something that doesn't actually exist in nature!  </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 19, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /><p>Now, this is really simple.</p><ul><li>Your current arguments are in direct disagreement with general relativity, which does not depend on dark matter, dark energy, or dark anything.  So forget about dark energy.  It is not necessary for general relativity or for an expanding universe.  But I have told you this before, and it falls on deaf ears.</DIV></li></ul><p>Gah!  Talk about deaf ears.  I've told you I agree with non cludged GR, GR that lacks dark energy.  I fully appreciate that momentum is conserved in an expansion process, but your dark energy theory has nothing to do with expansion the way Einstein taught it.  You are intentionally distorting both Einstein's GR, and expansion theory in general.  Expansion of spacetime happens when the objects expand.  Expanding space is mythos. That seems to fall your deaf ears.</p><p> </p><ul><li>You fail to recognize the above fact because you do not understand general relativity.</li></ul><p>Boloney. Dark energy Lambda-CDM theory is *NOT* GR theory.  It's metaphsics.  You keep insisting on stuffing dark energy into GR and that's the part I object to, not GR.  You're again misrepresenting the issue.</p><ul><li>I have given you several technical references on the subject, written by experts in the matter</li></ul><p>And I have explained now on serveral occassions that more dogma related to "dark enegry" is useless from the standpoiint of emprical science.  It's like a creationist telling me to read a religious book.  Show me emprically that dark energy isn't a figment of your imagination, and I'll be happy to let you cludge up GR with it.  Until you show me that DE isn't a figment of your imagination, your "experts" on the math aren't going to resolve anything between us by virue of their beautiful mathematical presentation of "dark energy".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And while it took the creativeness of Einstein to formulate general relativity, there are many people with an understanding of the eventual theory who understand it as well as he understood it.</DIV></p><p>Not the ones that stuff DE into it.  He rejected that concept outright as his personal greatest blunder, and he didn't even blow it by trying to claim that C represented anything other than a known force of nature, he simply never even tried to define it, or use it to achieve superluminal speeds from objects made of mass.  That is a superblunder theory run amuck IMO, and these folks are not "Experts" on GR, just experts at math and make believe.   Just like creationist theory, one emprical test could set me straight, but none of your experts can ever provide one.  Coincidence?  I think not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The people who wrote the references are in that class, and what they write is in complete agreement with general relativity as Einstein understood it.</DIV></p><p>They are in a metaphysical class by themselves.  I think Einstein would have fallen out of his chair when they tried to achieve superluminal repulsive events with gravity theory.  OMG.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most of them are students of John Archibald Wheeler, who first taught the first courses on general relativity at Princeton, and was able to consult with Einstein in that endeavor.  You don't have to take their word either, since their books provide rigorous derivations of the equations of general relativity and can show how expansion is a necessary of general relativity if there is no cosmological constant.</DIV></p><p>You are name dropping and basing your arguments on appeal to authority fallacies rather than just admitting you have no emprical support for this idea whatsoever.  IMO that tactic alwasys smells of pure desparaton when one emprical test would do nicely to settle any debate. </p><p>I'm not going to bother to address the other points since you blatently misrepresented my position.  </p><p>I don't reject GR theory Doctor.  I don't have a problem with expansion as Einstein envisioned.  I actually am very fond of GR theory, which is exactly why I resent you cludging it up with metaphysics and dark energy.  By itself GR theory is a beautiful physics theory related to the attraction of matter to other forms of matter.   Lambda-CDM theory however 95% metaphysical cludge, 5% GR.  </p><p> I don't reject GR theory Doctor, much as you might like to rationalize it that way.  I don't lack an understanding of GR theory while rejecting your faith in dark energy. Quite the opposite. I tightly grasp onto the physics of GR theory as Einstein taught it, and I reject your dark energy additions to it.   If you want to put your faith in dark energy theories, fine, but stop trying to pass it off as GR theory ,or physics.  It's neither. </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 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">If you find the mathematics in <em>Gravitation</em> a bit too difficult,  Then there are a couple of other books by these same gentlemen that might help.  The sections on relativity in Wheeler's book <em>Geons, Black Holes and  Quantum Foam</em> are pretty good and also give some some of Einstein's ideas.  Kip Thorne's book <em>Black Holes and Time Warps; Einstein's Outrageous Legacy</em> explains not only general relativity but also some far-out notions that may be consistent with it.  He is pretty clear about separating the far-out from the verified, but the expanding universe is clearly in the verified camp.</font> <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Even if expansion and even acceleration of this plasma universe is occuring, there is zero emprical evidence that "dark energy" has anything to do with these observations.  That's the key issue in a nutshell.  Math related to emprically demonstrateable forces of nature can be verified and falsified in a lab.  Math related to metaphysical constructs cannot.  In most definitions of science, falsification is a primary prerequisite to any "scientific" theory, otherwise it falls into the realm of psuedosientific speculation.</p><p>You keep skirting around the fact that DE hasn't ever been emprically demonstrated and you keep throwing more references on the mathematics of these theories at me.  That isn't going to cut it.   Only emprical scientific evidence that DE exists in nature is going to cut it.    One emprical demonstration of the power of dark energy could end this debate.  You can't provide one, because none exist.  That's the problem Doctor.  Rationalize all you like, but GR theory as Einstein taught it did not allow for mass objects to travel faster than light speed, and it including no mention of "dark energy".  DE theory is not GR, no matter how you try to slice it, dice it, or rationalize it.</p><p>The empricist in me insists on seeing you demonstrate that DE isn't a figment of your imagination, and has some tangible and demonstrateable effect on reality *before* I'll believe that DE has any effect on anything.</p><p>Now I'd feel radically different if you were stuffing a *known* force of nature into your constant, but unfortunately you chose to stuff it with a metaphysical concept instead, and you can't emprically demonstrate that it exists in nature.  That leaves the skeptic in me with little to do but reject your ideas on grounds that it is both unverifed, and unfalsifiable, and metaphysical in nature.  I'd do the same thing if you put magic unicorns in that GR formula.  My rejection is based on the fact that you can't emprically demonstrate that DE exists in nature or effects nature in any physical way.  I therefore can't just let you point to the sky and claim that "dark energy did it", no matter how much faith you have in the idea of dark energy.  It's not even a scientific theory because it is absolutely and positively unfalsifiable, whereas every other aspect of GR theory is either falsifiable or has already been demonstrated to be emprically true.</p><p>GR theory is pure physics.  DE is not.  They are not even related to each one another, other than the fact that you wish to stuff DE into GR *before* you emprically demonstrate that DE is not a figment of your imagination.   If I stuffed magic energy into that same constant, you wouldn't let me teach magic enery theory to your children in a classroom setting would you?  Dark energy is science fiction, not emprical science.  Math based on dark energy is science fiction mathematics, not physics. </p><p> </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>

Universe twice as bright?

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page