Universe twice as bright?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.&nbsp; That's the key issue in a nutshell.&nbsp; Math related to emprically demonstrateable forces of nature can be verified and falsified in a lab.&nbsp; Math related to metaphysical constructs cannot.&nbsp; In most definitions of science, falsification is a primary prerequisite to any "scientific" theory, otherwise it falls into the realm of psuedosientific speculation.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.&nbsp; That isn't going to cut it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Only emprical scientific evidence that DE exists in nature is going to cut it.&nbsp; &nbsp; One emprical demonstration of the power of dark energy could end this debate.&nbsp; You can't provide one, because none exist.&nbsp; That's the problem Doctor.&nbsp; 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".&nbsp; DE theory is not GR, no matter how you try to slice it, dice it, or rationalize it.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.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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I'd do the same thing if you put magic unicorns in that GR formula.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.GR theory is pure physics.&nbsp; DE is not.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Dark energy is science fiction, not emprical science.&nbsp; Math based on dark energy is science fiction mathematics, not physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You know, I have told you several times that I personally don't buy in totally to dark energy, and that it is simply a way of saying "we don't know" while offering a hypothesis for evaluation.&nbsp;The existence or lack thereof can be safely ignored for the topics at hand. </p><p>&nbsp;The fact that masses cannot travel faster than light through space is both true and totally irrelevant to the discussion -- and I recognize that you cannot understand that fact.&nbsp; Now, go learn some physics and then maybe we can have a rational discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ignorance of that subject results in a lackof rationality and logic in your rants.&nbsp; I'm very sorrry if the necessary level of mathematics is a deterrent to you, but unfortunately mathematics is the language of physics.&nbsp; You might have to learn some in order to grasp the necessary physics.&nbsp; Try it.&nbsp; It can be kinda fun.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With a little further reading I find that it seems that more up-to-date determination of the Hubble constant use techniques that do depend on standard candles, but rather on other effects measured from the cosmic background radiation.&nbsp; So perhaps there is no effect on the HUbble constant from this new perspective on dust attenuation in galaxies. <br />Posted by <strong>DrRocket</strong></DIV><br /><br />OK, I think the post above is the last on topic post ... at least the last I could find.&nbsp; Having read the paper I better understand (or not) what they're talking about&nbsp;and have to question whether much really changes as a result.&nbsp; Some galaxies will have revised (intrinsic) luminosities while others will not.&nbsp; So rather than affecting the Hubble constant (at least for some types of measurements), I'd expect there to be a reduced variance in the values calculated.&nbsp; That is, there should be better agreement between brightness, distance and redshift.&nbsp; </p><p>Now I read that with the new corrections, there seems to be a spectral weighting change as well.&nbsp; What implications for galaxy&nbsp;formation and composition, if any,&nbsp;does&nbsp;this have ?&nbsp;</p><p>PS - Don't we already have a thread to bicker, errr ... discuss the relative merits of EU vs Lambda-CDM ?? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You know, I have told you several times that I personally don't buy in totally to dark energy, and that it is simply a way of saying "we don't know" while offering a hypothesis for evaluation.</DIV></p><p>DE is not a physical hypothesis based on emprical science.&nbsp; It is an unfalsifiable concept to begin with, just like "dark matter that emits and absorbs no light".&nbsp; There is no such thing as dark energy, so claiming that it causes "space to expand" is utterly and completely irrational.&nbsp; Likewise there are no exotic forms of matter yet to be identified as far as you know, so it's irrational to claim that "Dark matter" exists in nature when you can't produce even a single gram of the stuff or a single experiment to show it's not a fudge factor of epic proportions, </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The existence or lack thereof can be safely ignored for the topics at hand.</DIV></p><p>But that is not the case of "dark matter", since this brightness information falsified at least a part of that bit of metaphysics in a big way. &nbsp; Some of your "Dark matter" literally bit the dust this week.&nbsp; That will also happen to the rest of it some day, and it will happen to your "dark energy" too.&nbsp; These things do not exist in nature and have never been shown to exist in nature. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that masses cannot travel faster than light through space is both true and totally irrelevant to the discussion -- and I recognize that you cannot understand that fact.</DIV></p><p>You are right that it is relevant to this discussion since these observations relate mostly to "dark matter".&nbsp; GR was never intended to do the metaphysical tricks you made it do with "dark energy".&nbsp; Oddly enough you can in fact slap "dark matter" into GR, but you'd end up with dark matter planets and suns and all sorts of things that we never find in the real world, so of course that is "explained" by tacking on yet another metaphysical property to "dark matter" that can never be falsified. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, go learn some physics and then maybe we can have a rational discussion.</DIV></p><p>Give me a break.&nbsp; You can't do "physics" with things that don't emprically exist in nature.&nbsp; It's like trying to do physics with magic elves.&nbsp; I don't care how much studying I might do about the physics behind magic elves, I'm afraid I'm never going to buy the concept until I see some emprical evidence that it's not a figment of your imagination. The same is true with "dark energy". &nbsp; Show me real physical experiments that show that your dark energy isnt' a figment of your imagation and I'll be happy to study it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Without emprical evidence to back up your claim, there is nothing to study. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ignorance of that subject results in a lackof rationality and logic in your rants. </DIV></p><p>It's only because I'm not ignorant of the history behind these theories that leads to my very rational dismissal of your metaphysical constructs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm very sorrry if the necessary level of mathematics is a deterrent to you, but unfortunately mathematics is the language of physics.&nbsp; You might have to learn some in order to grasp the necessary physics.&nbsp; Try it.&nbsp; It can be kinda fun.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I realize that your mind would like to rationalize your personal lack of emprical evidence to support your faith in "dark energy" and dark matter as some sort of mathematical deficiency on my part, but the reality has nothing to do with math, and everything to do with your lack of physical evidence to support your faith in metaphysical forces of nature that do not actually exist in nature and never have existed in nature and never will exist in nature.&nbsp; The fact you cannot provide solid emprical evidence to support your mathematical model of magic and dark stuff is not evidence of a mathematical deficiency on my part. &nbsp; Your bizarre rationalizations are simply a self defense mechanism designed to shelter your belief system from the fact you have no emprical support to back up your dogma.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with math.&nbsp; Math related to physically real things is fine by me.&nbsp; Math related to metaphysical entities is not physics, it is psuedosience.</p><p>As for this specific topic (finding of more baryonic matter in galaxies), these new observations are most easily explained by doubling the light sources of a galaxy, and doubling the number of stars in a galaxy.&nbsp; The fact you folks are trying to minimize the amount of mass required to explain a doubling of photon output from a galsxy that mostly emits starlight, simply demonstrates to everyone how irrational this whole belief system has become.&nbsp;&nbsp; You have all this unidentified mass to account for in the lensing data, and you have new evidence now that would allow you to easily double the amount of baryonic mass in a galaxy, and all you guys do is hedge and haw and ignore the obvious explanation entirely.&nbsp; It's sort of par for the course in this industry I'm afraid.&nbsp; You guys never look for the easy answer, the most logical answer, or the answer that is based on emprical physics. &nbsp; That's quite sad from my perspective.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</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]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, I think the post above is the last on topic post ... at least the last I could find.&nbsp; Having read the paper I better understand (or not) what they're talking about&nbsp;and have to question whether much really changes as a result.&nbsp; Some galaxies will have revised (intrinsic) luminosities while others will not.&nbsp; So rather than affecting the Hubble constant (at least for some types of measurements), I'd expect there to be a reduced variance in the values calculated.&nbsp; That is, there should be better agreement between brightness, distance and redshift.&nbsp; Now I read that with the new corrections, there seems to be a spectral weighting change as well.&nbsp; What implications for galaxy&nbsp;formation and composition, if any,&nbsp;does&nbsp;this have ?&nbsp;PS - Don't we already have a thread to bicker, errr ... discuss the relative merits of EU vs Lambda-CDM ?? <br /> Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV><br />Point noted.&nbsp;&nbsp; The primary implication here however is quite relevant to Lambda-CDM theory. This data suggest that current stellar density population number and/or baryonic mass calculations are significantly underestimating the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy, thus eliminating the need for at least part of the "dark matter" fudge factor we find in Lambda-CDM theory. <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>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Point noted.&nbsp;&nbsp; The primary implication here however is quite relevant to Lambda-CDM theory. This data suggest that current stellar density population number and/or baryonic mass calculations are significantly underestimating the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy, thus eliminating the need for at least part of the "dark matter" fudge factor we find in Lambda-CDM theory. <br />Posted by <strong>michaelmozina</strong></DIV><br /><br />I missed what percentage of a typical galaxies mass is now thought to consist of light blocking&nbsp;dust ?&nbsp; How much was it ?&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, I think the post above is the last on topic post ... at least the last I could find.&nbsp; Having read the paper I better understand (or not) what they're talking about&nbsp;and have to question whether much really changes as a result.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Well, perhaps I can atone for some of my past hijacking sins by trying to bring the thread back on topic to the implications of the paper itself.</p><p>As I "interpret" their data (yes I admit it's a subjective interpretation of their data), the current methods of calculating the amount of baryonic mass siginificantly underestimates the actual amount, from a mininum of 20%, to at least a maximum of 100% and depending on the density of the core, perhaps even more.</p><p>Now we know from the bullet cluster lensing data the the "unidentified mass" we are looking for is mostly constrained to the central core of the galaxy, and the stellar infrastructure rather than in the plasma between the stars. &nbsp; The "unidentified matter" seemed to pass right through both of the bullet cluster galaxies, and only the light plasma of between the stars seemed to "collide".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now of course, considering the distance between stars, a direct hit between stellar objects would be very unlikely, and depending on the speed of the "collision", we would expect most of the stars to pass right through one another and not collide with any stellar objects in the opposing galaxy. &nbsp;</p><p>The overall model presented in this paper is in fact consistent with that hypothesis as well. It suggests that the majority of light in the core is absorbed by the dusty plasmas of the core.</p><p>Since we know that there is a lot of 'unidentified mass" to account for in this lensing data, and we know that a galaxy might produce twice as many stellar photons than once believed, wouldn't it be only logical to presume that the core has a far greater stellar density than we realized, and that the baryonic matter component can easily and should easily be at least doubled, so that we can minimize the amount of "unidentified matter"?</p><p>It seems to me that we should be stuffing the core of galaxies with increased stellar populations rather than "dark matter". &nbsp;</p><p>http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/</p><p>This information also reminded me of some Chandra data related to the iron "rings" around the cores of galaxies.&nbsp; It seems to me that such a ring could easily absorb a lot of photons and lot more photons than even this paper suggests.&nbsp; It seems to me that if we're looking to eliminate as much "dark matter" as we can, there are easy enough ways to do so without suggesting that any new exotic, non light interacting forms of matter are involved.&nbsp;</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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I missed what percentage of a typical galaxies mass is now thought to consist of light blocking&nbsp;dust ?&nbsp; How much was it ?&nbsp; <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>According to the paper the mass of the dust is "negligible". That is per a reference to : Driver ete al 2007 MNRAS, 379, 1022 -- and I do not understand the abbreviations herein that identify the journal.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chode]

<p>There seems to be a lot of arguement here about nothing. I hate to see so much energy wasted. If&nbsp;I can offer another perspective:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1) The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are really just placeholders. There is no established theory about what these really are. The terms exist only because of two recent observations:</p><p>a) Clusters of galaxies seem to behave (as in velocities and separations) as if there was much more mass within that cluster than can be accounted for by just adding up the masses of the observed galaxies. So, whatever is causing this behaves like matter (has mass), but we cannot see it, so not having any idea what it is, let's call it "dark matter". So, when I see the term "dark matter", what comes to mind is "whatever it is that causes clusters of galaxies to behave like they have much more mass than is observed".</p><p>&nbsp;b) The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. We have no idea what is causing this, but it must be expending energy to cause it, but since we don't know what it is, let's call it "dark energy". So, when I see "dark energy", I think: "whatever it is that is causing the universe's accelerating expansion".</p><p>&nbsp;I think the use of the terms "theory" or "physics" to describe either "dark matter" or "dark energy" is completely missing the point. There is no theory or physics that explains either of these, they are really just terms physicists use to refer to the effects of yet-unknown physics. So, arguements about belief/disbelief or truth/untruth of dark matter and dark energy are useless, since there is no theory and no truth&nbsp;implied in these concepts, other than to&nbsp;give a name to unexplained physical phenomena.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards</p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to the paper the mass of the dust is "negligible". That is per a reference to : Driver ete al 2007 MNRAS, 379, 1022 -- and I do not understand the abbreviations herein that identify the journal. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The mass of the dust may indeed be "negligible", but the baryonic mass required to create twice as many photons is significant and could conceivably (depending on how one interprets this data) require double the amount of baryonic mass.&nbsp; It's not the mass of the dust that is at issue, it's the star density/mass calculations that are now suspect and will need to e revised significantly upwards.</p><p>Even as a critic of Lambda-CDM theory, this turn of events seems like a positive thing in the final analysis because it will inevitably require significantly less "dark matter" to explain the total matter in a galaxy, thus reducing it's reliance upon non emprically demonstrated, metaphysical entities, and significantly increasing it's physically identified forms of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>IMO the primary criticism of "dark matter" is that no such thing is known to exist in nature. &nbsp; I can easy accept that more stars exist in galaxies, and more of that starlight is blocked by dust than we realize.&nbsp; I don't see any evidence to suggest we need any exotic forms of matter to explain "unidentified flying mass".&nbsp;&nbsp; There is a profound but subtle difference between claiming that "a large portion of the matter is unidentified at this time", and "non baryonic dark matter did it.". &nbsp;&nbsp; The first statement scientifically accurate, whereas the later is a statement of faith. &nbsp; This paper demonstrate&nbsp; that our baryonic mass estimations are significantly flawed, and by changing some of these flaws we can begin to account for more of the "unidentified matter" in a galaxy.&nbsp; That seems like a very good thing from the standpoint of emprical physics.&nbsp; &nbsp; </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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to the paper the mass of the dust is "negligible". That is per a reference to : Driver ete al 2007 MNRAS, 379, 1022 -- and I do not understand the abbreviations herein that identify the journal. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I believe it's Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There seems to be a lot of arguement here about nothing. I hate to see so much energy wasted. If&nbsp;I can offer another perspective:&nbsp;1) The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are really just placeholders. There is no established theory about what these really are. The terms exist only because of two recent observations:a) Clusters of galaxies seem to behave (as in velocities and separations) as if there was much more mass within that cluster than can be accounted for by just adding up the masses of the observed galaxies. So, whatever is causing this behaves like matter (has mass), but we cannot see it, so not having any idea what it is, let's call it "dark matter". So, when I see the term "dark matter", what comes to mind is "whatever it is that causes clusters of galaxies to behave like they have much more mass than is observed".&nbsp;b) The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. We have no idea what is causing this, but it must be expending energy to cause it, but since we don't know what it is, let's call it "dark energy". So, when I see "dark energy", I think: "whatever it is that is causing the universe's accelerating expansion".&nbsp;I think the use of the terms "theory" or "physics" to describe either "dark matter" or "dark energy" is completely missing the point. There is no theory or physics that explains either of these, they are really just terms physicists use to refer to the effects of yet-unknown physics. So, arguements about belief/disbelief or truth/untruth of dark matter and dark energy are useless, since there is no theory and no truth&nbsp;implied in these concepts, other than to&nbsp;give a name to unexplained physical phenomena.&nbsp;Regards <br />Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>You are completely correct.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are completely correct. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I believe several of us stated that many times in many threads. The message never seems to get there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO the primary criticism of "dark matter" is that no such thing is known to exist in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Are you really so dense that you cannot understand what people have been telling you over and over?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>"The mass of the dust may indeed be "negligible", but the baryonic mass required to create twice as many photons is significant and could conceivably (depending on how one interprets this data) require double the amount of baryonic mass."</strong></p><p>I still fail to understand how you interpret these findings to mean that there are 'twice as many photons'.&nbsp; When they speak of brightness, I assume they mean visible luminosity... photons in the visible spectrum.&nbsp; This might mean a significant increase in the energy output, but that doesn't require a doubling of photons to achieve.&nbsp; Certainly, an increase in visible photons is required to rectify an increase of the blockage from 10% to 50% in order to maintain visible luminosity, but, in no way, does this necessitate the need for doubling the visible mass. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you really so dense that you cannot understand what people have been telling you over and over?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Why must you turn every conversation into a personal attack?</p><p>I'm not the one that claimed there was a new form of matter the didn't emit or absorb light called "dark matter".&nbsp; Your industry made up these invisible "qualities" and then they assigned them to a form of matter that simply doesn't exist in nature.&nbsp; It was not that this "unidentified mass" did not interact with light. &nbsp; Quite the opposite is true.&nbsp; The light was being absorbed by standard baryonic matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not my fault that astromers have posited new forms of matter like SUSY particles and exotic forms of matter to explain these distant observations.&nbsp; I'm simply noting that SUSY theory has never been empirically demonstrated, and there is absolutely no need for exotic forms of matter to explain "unidentied matter". </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why must you turn every conversation into a personal attack?I'm not the one that claimed there was a new form of matter the didn't emit or absorb light called "dark matter".&nbsp; Your industry made up these invisible "qualities" and then they assigned them to a form of matter that simply doesn't exist in nature.&nbsp; It was not that this "unidentified mass" did not interact with light. &nbsp; Quite the opposite is true.&nbsp; The light was being absorbed by standard baryonic matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not my fault that astromers have posited new forms of matter like SUSY particles and exotic forms of matter to explain these distant observations.&nbsp; I'm simply noting that SUSY theory has never been empirically demonstrated, and there is absolutely no need for exotic forms of matter to explain "unidentied matter". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>QED</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h3><br /><br />&nbsp;</h3> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There seems to be a lot of arguement here about nothing. I hate to see so much energy wasted. If&nbsp;I can offer another perspective:&nbsp;1) The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are really just placeholders. There is no established theory about what these really are. The terms exist only because of two recent observations:a) Clusters of galaxies seem to behave (as in velocities and separations) as if there was much more mass within that cluster than can be accounted for by just adding up the masses of the observed galaxies. So, whatever is causing this behaves like matter (has mass), but we cannot see it, so not having any idea what it is, let's call it "dark matter". So, when I see the term "dark matter", what comes to mind is "whatever it is that causes clusters of galaxies to behave like they have much more mass than is observed"</DIV></p><p>When I was in college the term "dark matter" had exactly the connotation you suggest.&nbsp; It referred primarily to matter we simply could not identify at this time, and was more along the lines of what is today considered MACHO forms of "missing msss".&nbsp; Today however we have astronomers suggesting that this missing mass has various qualities that are unlike ordinary forms of matter and have invisible qualities that are not found in normal baryonic matter.&nbsp; For instance, SUSY particles have been proposed to explain this phenomenon.&nbsp; There is no such thing as a SUSY particle to begin with, and no indication that SUSY particles would remain stable over timelines that would help us to explain any type of "missing mass", or that the would not interact with photons.&nbsp; I've even read papers about how "dark matter" supposedly passes through baryonic forms of matter.&nbsp; As time has gone by, what started as a simple placeholder term for human ignorance has been replaced by theories that are unflasifiable, and are based on theoretical forms of matter that have never been emprically demonstrated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>b) The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. We have no idea what is causing this, but it must be expending energy to cause it, but since we don't know what it is, let's call it "dark energy". So, when I see "dark energy", I think: "whatever it is that is causing the universe's accelerating expansion".&nbsp;I think the use of the terms "theory" or "physics" to describe either "dark matter" or "dark energy" is completely missing the point. There is no theory or physics that explains either of these, they are really just terms physicists use to refer to the effects of yet-unknown physics. So, arguements about belief/disbelief or truth/untruth of dark matter and dark energy are useless, since there is no theory and no truth&nbsp;implied in these concepts, other than to&nbsp;give a name to unexplained physical phenomena.&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>Admitting that you don't know what caused this observation of plasma acceleration is just fine.&nbsp; Claiming that "space expands" and mass travels at superluminal speeds as a result of this "expanding space" is a horse of a completely different color. &nbsp; &nbsp; We know for instance that EM fields will cause plasma to accelerate.&nbsp;&nbsp; It does not however cause space to "expand", and it would never allow for plasma to travel faster than light speeds.&nbsp; There's definitely a metpahysical qualitity to "dark energy" that has never been demonstrated.</p><p>It would be like me pointing to a space change between two objects in a lab and claiming that no force acted on the objects to cause them to accelerate, but rather the "space between them expanded" and at superluminal speeds no less. &nbsp;</p><p>While your way of looking at the term "dark matter" may still be a valid way to view current theories about "dark matter", "dark energy" theories are not based on known physics, but upon metaphysical ideas that are not a part of physics or GR theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; "Metric space" does not, and cannot expand. &nbsp; Only "spacetime" can expand as the objects inside of spacetime spread out and cause the manifold to change it's shape.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In no way would normal particle acceleration allow for any form of mass to travel at superliminal speeds.&nbsp; Matter is limited to C.&nbsp; To suggest that any form of acceleration would cause the "space" between galsies to expand and allow for galaxies to travel away from each other at superlimal speeds is far beyond the confines of physics, GR theory and testable science.&nbsp; &nbsp; The term "dark energy" is not just suggesting that there is some standard force of acceleration going on that we cannot account for.&nbsp;&nbsp; The way DE has been stuffed into Lambda-CDM theory precludes it from ever being an "identified" physical force of acceleration.&nbsp; In fact no known identified physical force would act that way, or allow for particles of mass to do that.&nbsp; There is no one to one correlation between "dark energy" and "I don't know what causes acceleration of these objects".&nbsp; The term "dark energy' is not simply a placeholder term for human ignorance, it is theory that defies the laws of physics as we understand them.</p><p>I wish I could just agree with you that these are placeholder terms for human ignorance, but based on the papers that are being published by astronomers about SUSY particles and the way "dark energy" is stuffed into GR theory precludes them from being just placeholder terms for ignorance. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Invisible DM partifcles are not based on standard physics, and DE is not just any old form of acceleration. &nbsp;&nbsp;</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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe several of us stated that many times in many threads. The message never seems to get there. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'll buy that placeholder term for ignorance argument as it relates to "dark matter", but we can't just insert any old force of nature into the dark energy components of Lambda-CDM theory and get it to work.&nbsp; EM fields can in fact accelerate plasma, but they won't cause "space" to expand, or allow for objects to travel faster than C.&nbsp;&nbsp; While you could insert any known form of mass into "dark matter" variable of Lambda-CDM theory, and get it to work, that is certainly not the case for&nbsp; "dark energy".&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm afraid the argument that DE is simply a placeholder term for human ignorance is not tenable.&nbsp; No known force of acceleration would allow "space" to expand.&nbsp; Even some kind of expanding aether would not allow for particles of matter to travel faster than light according to standard GR theory. While that argument works for DM, it doesn't fly for DE. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are completely correct. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It's only half correct actually.&nbsp;</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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still fail to understand how you interpret these findings to mean that there are 'twice as many photons'.&nbsp; When they speak of brightness, I assume they mean visible luminosity... photons in the visible spectrum.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Actually it referred to a range of photons, not just visible light. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This might mean a significant increase in the energy output, but that doesn't require a doubling of photons to achieve. </DIV></p><p>In theory, we could crank up the amperage in EU theory and achieve a similar effect so your argument is valid.&nbsp; It is also possible to explain the doubling of energy output by doubling your number of point sources/stars.&nbsp; We do however have a *lot* of "unidentified matter" to explain, so it seems far more likely to me that we grossly underestimated the number of stars in a galaxy. We do in fact use liminosity figures to guestimate the number of stars in a galaxy.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Certainly, an increase in visible photons is required to rectify an increase of the blockage from 10% to 50% in order to maintain visible luminosity, but, in no way, does this necessitate the need for doubling the visible mass. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It may not "necessitate" the need for a doubling of the visible mass, but that is in fact one logical way to explain a doubling of luminosity, and it has the advantage of decreasing our dependence on metaphysical forms of matter, and increasing the amount of "indentifyied mass" in a galaxy.&nbsp; It seems to me it's a more likely scenario, especially considering the amount of unidentified mass we have to work with.&nbsp;</p><p>I agree with you that it's not a "necessity" to double the number of stars in a galaxy, but it is one valid way of doubling the intensity of light in a galaxy, and there is a lot of unaccounted for mass in a galaxy.&nbsp; I would also note that this "assumption" is entirely consistent with Bullet Cluster lensing data, and it would go a long way to removing the "mystery" behind "dark matter". &nbsp;</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]

<p><strong>"When I was in college the term "dark matter" had exactly the connotation you suggest."</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>And, AFAIK, it still does.&nbsp; You are the one that keeps twisting the definition which leads to false assertations on what scientist 'think'.&nbsp; The theory surrounding the idea of missing matter is based on observations.&nbsp; The term 'dark' is nothing more than using poetic liscense in the description. </p><p>One hypothesis (say it with me... hy-poth-e-sis <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />) is that is *<strong><em>may</em></strong>* be a new particle (not form) of matter.&nbsp; Taken at face value, it's not a difficult concept to grasp. </p><p><strong>"..."dark energy" theories are not based on known physics, but upon metaphysical ideas that are not a part of physics or GR theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; "Metric space" does not, and cannot expand."</strong></p><p>I really don't want to debate the merits of dark energy, but I just wanted to be clear on whether you understand that dark energy is not required for metric expansion of space (expansion to mean the increase in distance between comoving coordinates).&nbsp; And that dark energy is not required for superluminal recessional velocities which are a natural, unavoidable consequence of Hubble's Law.&nbsp;</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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"And, AFAIK, it still does.&nbsp; You are the one that keeps twisting the definition which leads to false assertations on what scientist 'think'. </DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+WIMP/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p>Sorry, it's not just me who's been changing the meaning of these terms over the years. &nbsp; How many papers from astronomers about WIMP theory would you like? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The theory surrounding the idea of missing matter is based on observations.&nbsp; The term 'dark' is nothing more than using poetic liscense in the description.</DIV></p><p>It's poetic liscense to stuff in all sorts of metaphysical materials.&nbsp; "Dark" energy isn't even "energy", because you couldn't add simple known forms of "energy" to the expansion process and get particles of matter to exceed C. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One hypothesis (say it with me... hy-poth-e-sis ) is that is *may* be a new particle (not form) of matter. </DIV></p><p>The "hypothesis" of WIMP theory is predicated on them:</p><p> A) existing at all</p><p>B) not interacting with light (another "asumption" about dark matter that has never been established as fact)</p><p>C) passing through other forms of matter without collision (never demonstrated)</p><p>D) Being long lived particles that don't revert to other forms of matter in a matter of seconds (also never demonstrated, just assumed)</p><p>C seems to be dependent upon who's writing the paper, but there are at least 3 *assumptions* related to WIMP theory that all must be true in order for Lambda-CDM to be valid, and nobody ever demonstrated any of them emprically before claiming "WIMPS did it".&nbsp; Three different things have to be emprically demonstrated before anyone can claim "WIMPS might have done it".&nbsp; Not one of them was done.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really don't want to debate the merits of dark energy, but I just wanted to be clear on whether you understand that dark energy is not required for metric expansion of space (expansion to mean the increase in distance between comoving coordinates).&nbsp; And that dark energy is not required for superluminal recessional velocities which are a natural, unavoidable consequence of Hubble's Law.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>We're going to have to be clear about what you're calling "metric space", and "comoving systems" now.&nbsp;&nbsp; Spacetime can indeed "expand" as the particles of matter spread out, and the manifold of spacetime spreads out accordingly.&nbsp; "Space" however cannot expand, and nothing made of matter can travel faster than C according to GR theory. </p><p>Einstein ultimately rejected even adding a constant to GR to help explain a static universe because it was unnecssary to do so, and there was no guarantee that any force C was not a completely different force of nature than gravity, and should be handled accordingly anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory turns GR on it's head by claiming we can stuff an acceleration process on *top of standard expansion* that miraculacely is supposed to allow particles made of matter to travel faster than C.&nbsp; That can't happen.</p><p>If your theory starts from a centralized singularity, how do you intend to create multiple comoving coordinates from that "Bang"?&nbsp; Wouldn't everything start at 0,0,0,0?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Unless you stuff in some sort of metaphysical process into ordinary material expansion, there is no logigcal way to explain the current size of this physical universe based on GR in only a 13.7 billion year timeline.&nbsp; Particles of mass simply cannot travel faster than light according to GR theory, and nothing like inflation or DE has ever been shown to exist in nature in a controlled scientific experiment.&nbsp; These are metaphsical add ons to Lambda and BB theory that have absolutely nothing at all to do with GR.&nbsp; In fact any sort of acceleration process would not necessarily have anything at all to do with GR, so stuffing these things into GR is a pure act of faith and it is liable to do more harm than good when it comes to trying to explain the obsservation of acceleration of objects that are billions of light years away from us. </p><p>An expanding and all pervasive EM field would in fact cause the whole thing to "accelerate".&nbsp;&nbsp; In no way however would it allow us to explain a physical universe that is over 27.4 billion light years across.&nbsp; Only a metaphysical "make believe' construct could hope to do that because ever known force of nature that could or might drive acceleration would still be limited by the speed of light limitation. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe several of us stated that many times in many threads. The message never seems to get there. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Yep.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yep. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nope.&nbsp; That might be true of "dark matter" if you ignored all the SUSY stuff being published, but DE is nothing like any known force of nature, and neither is inflation.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't stuff any known force of nature into Lambda-CDM theory and replace DE, so nope, it's not just a placeholder term for ignorance, it's a giant leap of faith into metaphysics and there is no way back, and no way to falsify or verify the concept. </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]

<p>Nevermind. </p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/10/c8c4fc1e-5426-447f-ba2c-81f2651ba20d.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</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>