Universe twice as bright?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Your response has nothing whatever to do with the subject of my comment.&nbsp; Do even read the posts before you argue ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nevermind. &nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>My sentiments exactly.</p><p>How did you do that ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your response has nothing whatever to do with the subject of my comment.&nbsp; Do even read the posts before you argue ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>He just did the same with me... hence me burying my face in my hands.&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'>Your response has nothing whatever to do with the subject of my comment.&nbsp; Do even read the posts before you argue ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I assumed you were trying to suggest that these terms were simply placeholder terms for human ignorance, but that is simply not the case with DE.&nbsp;</p><p>If I misunderstood what you were trying to suggest, I appologize.&nbsp; I do answer respond to these posts between tech calls at work, and I do indeed make mistakes from time time, and occasionally I misunderstand the implications of what someone is suggesting.</p><p>I don't really have any problem accepting that "dark matter" is a term that may relate to human ignorance and may have a logical explanation in normal forms of matter.&nbsp; DE on the other hand is impossible to replace with any known form of energy, so suggesting it's just a placeholder term is misleading.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't just replace DE with any known force of nature, so it's literally a supernatural construct.</p><p>There is a difference in that respect between DE and DM, and that's all I've been trying to point out.&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><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My sentiments exactly.How did you do that ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It's a .gif file I downloaded from elsewhere.&nbsp; Just insert it like you would a normal picture.&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]

I'm curious if there is any specific reason why the mainstream wouldn't use this opportunity to double the light sources and baryonic matter of galaxy to explain a doubling of the light coming from a galaxy?&nbsp; I mean there is that small matter of not being able to identify the vast majority of the mass of a galaxy.&nbsp; This does seem like a golden opportuning to account for a bunch of this presumed 'dark matter', and just can't think of any logical reason why the mainstream wouldn't jump at the chance to do that. <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]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520152013.htm <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'm curious if there is any specific reason why the mainstream wouldn't use this opportunity to double the light sources and baryonic matter of galaxy to explain a doubling of the light coming from a galaxy?&nbsp; I mean there is that small matter of not being able to identify the vast majority of the mass of a galaxy.&nbsp; This does seem like a golden opportuning to account for a bunch of this presumed 'dark matter', and just can't think of any logical reason why the mainstream wouldn't jump at the chance to do that. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Because this is not some sort of junior high school debate.&nbsp; They are constrained by physics as to what, where, and how much this obscuring dust can explain.&nbsp; The mass effect from this obscuring dust&nbsp;is apparently not that significant.</p><p>The mass that appears to be missing from galaxies, that is necessary to explain what holds them together given their rate of rotation and that is needed to hold local groups together would not be found in galaxy centers.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because this is not some sort of junior high school debate.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>That's sort of an overt ad hominem don't you think?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are constrained by physics as to what, where, and how much this obscuring dust can explain.&nbsp; The mass effect from this obscuring dust&nbsp;is apparently not that significant.</DIV></p><p>Huh?&nbsp; You have doubling of the intensity of light, from a "field of stars" whose number is calculated based on the intenstiy of the light! &nbsp; You could easily have twice as many stars cranking out light than you realized, and you act like this is "chicken feed".&nbsp; On top of that, you have tons of mass you cannot account for, and new information today as well about the "missing mass" found in the *nonhomogenous* threads of spacetime.&nbsp; I'm afraid that's not even a logical response on your part. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mass that appears to be missing from galaxies, that is necessary to explain what holds them together given their rate of rotation and that is needed to hold local groups together would not be found in galaxy centers. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The spiral arms are also likely to be less "optically thin" than first realized, and now that we know that the universe has threads of plasma running through it, it's got whole regions of areas that are not as "optically thin" as first imagined.&nbsp; Astronomers used to believe that inflation made everything "homogenously distributed", whereas now we know that the threads of spacetime are filled with gaping holes and dense filamants. &nbsp;</p><p>Even the bullet cluster lensing data did show a significant amount of "unidentied mass" sits in the cores and the overall solar infrasture.&nbsp;&nbsp; All of this data easily suggests that the methods to determine the amount of baryonic mass in a galaxy and universe have been seriously underestimated and harshly limited by past technology, and only now are we starting to locate all of it.&nbsp; None of this information suggests any any exotic forms of matter are necessary to explain an "unidentified mass" problem.&nbsp; The cores of galaxies contain dense clusters of stars, as do parts of the arms.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Jumping to the conclusion that we need exotic new particles of mass to account for unidentified mass found with our limited technologies, is like jumping to the conclusion that every "UFO" someone reports is necessarily from another planet.&nbsp; The obvious implication of both the findings of double the photon emissions from galaxies and the findings of more densely packed filaments in spacetime show us that our galaxy star density theories have been limited by our technolgies, and much of this "missing mass" is being identified, and is found in ordinary baryonic 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMZ6GSVYVE_index_1.html</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The map reveals a loose network of dark matter filaments, gradually collapsing under the relentless pull of gravity, and growing clumpier over time.</DIV> </p><p>Notice how today's announcement of the filamentary nature of the "missing mass" is also the same filamentary pattern of "dark matter" we find in the universe.&nbsp; There is no such thing as "dark matter" however, it's just that we understimate what's going on because our theories are not based on plasma physics principles, but on gravity oriented concepts stuffed with metaphysics. &nbsp; The "inflation" idea only added to the confusion.</p><p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060112_space_slinky.html</p><p>The current flow through these plasma filaments also leaves us distinct birkeland current patterns in the magnetic field layout. &nbsp;</p><p>Plasma physics is what drives the proceses of the the universe, not mysterious dark stuff. &nbsp; Due to the limits of our technology, and incorrect theory, we're struggling to identify the mass layout of what we though was a homogeneously distrubed galaxy,&nbsp;&nbsp; Instead we find it follows the expected behaviors that Alfven suggested, forming filamentary patterns through which current is flowing.&nbsp; There is nothing "dark" about the universe, only darkness in our comprehesion of it's nature.&nbsp; It's nature is explained by the laws of plasma physics, not metaphysical constructs. </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'>That's sort of an overt ad hominem don't you think?.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Not at all.</p><p>If one states that an argument is invalid because the arguer is stupid, then that is an ad hominem attack.&nbsp; It might be true, but does not directly address the issue.&nbsp; Even to point out that&nbsp;a "witness" is compromised is not an ad hominem argument, unless&nbsp;one claims the argument itself to be invalid&nbsp;on the basis of that compromise, rather than&nbsp;simply&nbsp;providing evidence that the "witness" may have a propensity&nbsp;for prevarication.</p><p>If one points out lack of logic or rigor in the argument,&nbsp;poor&nbsp;structure of the argument,&nbsp;improper context for&nbsp;the argument or stupidity of the argument itself then that is an entirely different matter.</p><p>I was pointing out that "mainstream" astrophysicists have as their objective, not the furthering of some particular agenda, but rather the objective evaluation of data and interpretation of that data.&nbsp; They are not chartered with a rash interpretation of new information, perhaps taken out of the proper context,&nbsp;so as to further some pre-conceived idea --&nbsp;whether that be the Lamda CDM model or anything else.&nbsp; That is not how science works.</p><p>If you perceived&nbsp;my statement&nbsp;otherwise, then perhaps you should examine the context in which you see your arguments, so as to understand why anyone might perceive it as applying thereto, assuming, that is, that your perception was of an attack directed towards you.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chode]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You say dark energy "is theory that defies the laws of physics as we understand them". I completely disagree. Just because there are papers published by astronomers about "SUSY particles and the way "dark energy" is stuffed into GR theory" does not preclude the use of the term "dark energy" from being used as a "placeholder for ignorance". Papers published that present possible theoretical explanations of what dark matter might be do not automatically become accepted scientific dogma. They are always open to challenge by anyone who might have a better idea, or those who would find flaws in those theories. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I think that your theory that "plasmas are the driving force of the universe" needs to be more developed before anyone will take it seriously. I, myself, do not dismiss the idea out of hand,&nbsp;without knowing more details. The first thing that you are going to need to gain more&nbsp;consideration of this theory is something (anything) that shows that this theory explains&nbsp;some un-explained observation or predicts something that new observations could reveal. In my view, that is where your energy should be directed, instead of argueing useless points on this discussion board.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards</p><p>&nbsp;Regards</p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't really have any problem accepting that "dark matter" is a term that may relate to human ignorance and may have a logical explanation in normal forms of matter.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replace the word 'normal' with natural and I'll consider this statement as progress.&nbsp; Welcome to the dark side <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />.</p><p><br /><br /> <br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/6/ab3044e3-71ec-4d20-86fc-9c7e02cab941.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br /><br /><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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>QED&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What's Quantum Electrodynamics got to do with it? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> </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'>&nbsp;Replace the word 'normal' with natural and I'll consider this statement as progress.&nbsp; Welcome to the dark side . &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Actually "natural" would have been a better word choice, but I just call it "missing matter". </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If one points out lack of logic or rigor in the argument,&nbsp;poor&nbsp;structure of the argument,&nbsp;improper context for&nbsp;the argument or stupidity of the argument itself then that is an entirely different matter.</DIV></p><p>Perhaps, but you failed to do that!</p><p>A doubling of the intensity of light can easily be rectified by doubling the light sources.&nbsp; That is not a "poor argument" or an improper context.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was pointing out that "mainstream" astrophysicists have as their objective, not the furthering of some particular agenda, but rather the objective evaluation of data and interpretation of that data.&nbsp; They are not chartered with a rash interpretation of new information, perhaps taken out of the proper context,&nbsp;so as to further some pre-conceived idea --&nbsp;whether that be the Lamda CDM model or anything else.&nbsp; That is not how science works.</DIV></p><p>And all I asked is why not double the number of stars in a galaxy to explain a doubling of the number of photons from a galaxy?&nbsp; There is a significant amount of matter tha is not accounted for in standard theory, and this seems like very direct evidence that their methods are grossly underestimating the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy.&nbsp; It's a legitimate question considering all the "dark matter" they can't account for, and the new information from this paper regarding the intensity of light coming from a galaxy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you perceived&nbsp;my statement&nbsp;otherwise, then perhaps you should examine the context in which you see your arguments, so as to understand why anyone might perceive it as applying thereto, assuming, that is, that your perception was of an attack directed towards you.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>A scientific explanation of why they selected some other method of "explaining" a doubling of the photons from a galaxy would be a legitimate way to address my question.&nbsp;&nbsp; The rest of your response was ultiamtely non-responsive to my point.&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'>You say dark energy "is theory that defies the laws of physics as we understand them". I completely disagree.</DIV></p><p>Show me where "dark energy" ever did anything to anything in a physics experiment then.&nbsp; You can't just increase the" space" between two objects without changing the overall energy in the system.&nbsp; What physical process in nature do you know of that makes "space expand"?&nbsp; All known forces of nature act on objects, not space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just because there are papers published by astronomers about "SUSY particles and the way "dark energy" is stuffed into GR theory" does not preclude the use of the term "dark energy" from being used as a "placeholder for ignorance".</DIV></p><p>SUSY theory relates to "dark matter" not "dark energy".&nbsp;&nbsp; SUSY theory is a *non* standard brand of particle physics theory.&nbsp; Emprical sceince has never demonstrated the existence of any SUSY related theoretical particles.&nbsp;&nbsp; Stuffing SUSY particles into a physics problem is therefore like stuffing magic into a physics problem.&nbsp; It's not a real physical solution to anything.&nbsp; We don't know if any SUSY particles exist.&nbsp; We don't know if they do or do not interact with light.&nbsp; We do not know if they are long lived particles rather than reverting instantly to some other form of matter.&nbsp; It is therfore silly to claim that SUSY particle theory solves any emprical science problem, or that SUSY particles do not interact with light, or that SUSY particles might explain a missing mass problem.</p><p>In the sense that they would necessarily have mass, and GR relates to particles with mass, I'm less "irked" by stuffing these things into a GR formula than I am irked by someone stuffing an repulsive process into GR theory.&nbsp; GR theory relates to *attractive* forces between two objects containing mass.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with any sort of repulsive force at all, and gravity has *never* been shown to do any sort of repulsive tricks.</p><p>In that sense, stuffing DE into a GR theory is ridiculace IMO.&nbsp; I can understand why you might want to put "missing mass" into a GR theory to make some mathematical argument, but there is no legitmate logical reason to believe that gravity has anything at all to do with repulsive acceleration of objects in space.&nbsp;&nbsp; There's no logical physical connection between gravity and any sort of universal acceleration. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Papers published that present possible theoretical explanations of what dark matter might be do not automatically become accepted scientific dogma. They are always open to challenge by anyone who might have a better idea, or those who would find flaws in those theories.</DIV></p><p>Well, as I see it, this paper on light intensities from galaxies falsifies part of "dark matter" theory, and demonstrates flaws in the matter calculations theories we have used to calculate the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think that your theory that "plasmas are the driving force of the universe" needs to be more developed before anyone will take it seriously. </DIV></p><p>You might see if you can locate a copy of "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven sometime.&nbsp; Plasma Cosmology theory/EU theory has been seriously developed, and even computer modelled by folks like Peratt.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I, myself, do not dismiss the idea out of hand,&nbsp;without knowing more details. The first thing that you are going to need to gain more&nbsp;consideration of this theory is something (anything) that shows that this theory explains&nbsp;some un-explained observation or predicts something that new observations could reveal. In my view, that is where your energy should be directed, instead of argueing useless points on this discussion board.&nbsp;Regards&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>It's not really a "useless point" considering this new information about the amount of photons that are being produced in a galaxy.&nbsp; If the galaxy is cranking out twice as many photons as we believed, then it's entirely possible it contains twice as many stars as we thought too. &nbsp; That reduces any need for metaphysical particles of matter, and increases the amount of baryonic matter that exists in a galaxy.&nbsp; This kind of information directly impacts the metaphysical aspects of contemporary theory.&nbsp; &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>It seems to me that these "missing threads" that have now been identified could have a direct impact on the amount of light that we will recieve from any galaxy that happens to be directly behind them.&nbsp; Not all areas of space will have the same optical thicknesses.&nbsp; In other words, the intensity of the light from the galaxy will also be dependent upon the exact amount of material between here and there, and we haven't begun to map out all the threads of space, or located and identified all the elements present.</p><p>I realize we have "unidentified flying matter' to explain, but we should refrain from simply *assuming* this mass is from another type of "matter", just as we should refrain from assuming a UFO in the sky is necessarily from another planet.&nbsp; We don't begin to know exactly where all the matter is located or how it's arranged.</p><p>Alfven predicted a "threaded" and non homogeneous plasma universe based purely on the laws of plasma physics.&nbsp; None of this is really "news"&nbsp; from the standpoint of EU theory.&nbsp; It is however quite a revelation from the perspective of inflation theory, an dark matter theory, and dark energy theory. &nbsp; We learned last year that the universe has huge gaping holes in it that defied the "predictions" of inflation theory. We learned this week that a lot of the 'dark matter" of the unvierse is located in natural baryonic forms of 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><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We learned this week that a lot of the 'dark matter" of the unvierse is located in natural baryonic forms of matter. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That reallly depends on what you constitute as 'a lot'.&nbsp; Stars make up about 1/2 percent of the LamdaCDM model.&nbsp; Even if you were to double the mass of stars (which is not being proposed by anyone but you), the significance on the model is still rather insignificant.&nbsp; </p><p>The mass in the web-like structures were already included in the baryonic side of the equation... This is not new, additional baryonic matter they are finding.&nbsp; I forget the exact numbers, but up until recently, only about 1/2 of the predicted baryonic matter had been detected.&nbsp; We could only detect 1/2, but when everything is factored in, it was predicted there should be twice as much.&nbsp; It was assumed that most of that mass was contained in these web-like structures, but happened to be increadibly difficult to detect.&nbsp; Now that we have detected them with reasonable certainty, they fit quite nicely with what has been predicted.&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'>That reallly depends on what you constitute as 'a lot'.&nbsp; Stars make up about 1/2 percent of the LamdaCDM model.&nbsp; Even if you were to double the mass of stars (which is not being proposed by anyone but you), the significance on the model is still rather insignificant. </DIV></p><p>It would still be a triumph for emprical science any way you want to rationalize the change in ratios.&nbsp; The more that times goes by, the less the "predictions" of Lamda-CDM/inflation model has accurately "predicted".&nbsp; Lambba-CDM cosmology is slowly but surely giving way to empirical science.&nbsp; The way I see it, you might as well get on board the plasma physics/plasma cosmology bandwagon now, and save yourself a lot of embarrasment later on. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mass in the web-like structures were already included in the baryonic side of the equation... This is not new, additional baryonic matter they are finding.&nbsp; I forget the exact numbers, but up until recently, only about 1/2 of the predicted baryonic matter had been detected.&nbsp; We could only detect 1/2, but when everything is factored in, it was predicted there should be twice as much.&nbsp; It was assumed that most of that mass was contained in these web-like structures, but happened to be increadibly difficult to detect.&nbsp; Now that we have detected them with reasonable certainty, they fit quite nicely with what has been predicted.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I have no faith in your "assumption" that astronomers have found anything close to 1/2 of the baryonic matter in the universe.&nbsp; I don't think they're even in the ballpark or they wouldn't need fudge factors like "dark matter' to explain lensing data, etc. &nbsp;&nbsp; The only matter that is known to exist in emprical science is baryonic matter and the other subatomic particles of matter that are found in standard particle physics theory.&nbsp; The notion that any of your missing mass is composed of anything other than the already identified particles that are known to emprically exist in nature is a pure act of faith on your part. </p><p>The one thing none of the astronomers ever manage to come up with is a single gram of dark matter so might can empircally test it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Instead we hear: "Trust me, I'm an astronomer".&nbsp; Sorry, but emprical science requires more than pure faith, it requires emprical sceintific evidence.&nbsp; There is no physical evidence that SUSY particles exist in nature, let alone that they would be stable for even a second, or that they would not interact with light if they did exist.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that inflation does anything or that it ever existed in nature.&nbsp; There is no known force of nature that has any effect on 'space" rather than physical objects, so any faith you might have in "dark energy" is woefully misplaced IMO and has no empirical support whatsoever.&nbsp; Nobody has ever made "space expand" in a lab. </p><p>IMO, current cosmology theory is just another mythological creationism story, albeit on a much longer timeline.&nbsp; Just like creationism, without the metaphysical additions to contemporary Lamda-CDM theory, there is absolutely no emprical way to justify the date that is given as the creation date of the Lambda-CDM BB theory.&nbsp; It is just as much of an act of faith as any other creation event mythology since there is no empirical evidence that all matter was ever condensed to a point, and there is no emprical evidence that inflation started anything, or that dark energy drives acceleration. &nbsp;&nbsp; Emprical science is quite different from acts of pure faith.&nbsp; Acts of faith require no emprical support in a controlled test, whereas emprical science demands it.&nbsp; Birkeland and Alfven had no trouble demonstrating their core ideas using standard methods of emprical science.&nbsp; My money is therefore on EU theory and plasma physics, not mythological forces of nature and creation event dates that cannot be justified by emprical science. </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>

 

[kin]

<p>Well, whenever I see a comment on the age of the universe I can't help but get annoyed. I'm obsessive compulsive, what can I say? Why do people always talk about the "age of the universe" when they are really pondering how long ago an event (The Big Bang) occurred? Asking how old the universe is makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and the only answer you're ever going to get is "unable to compute" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, whenever I see a comment on the age of the universe I can't help but get annoyed. I'm obsessive compulsive, what can I say? Why do people always talk about the "age of the universe" when they are really pondering how long ago an event (The Big Bang) occurred? Asking how old the universe is makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and the only answer you're ever going to get is "unable to compute" <br />Posted by kin</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>Why would you not consider the time since the Big Bang to be the age of the universe ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

A few quotes from some of your posts in this thread.&nbsp; I think I stopped at page 2 as I believe these are ample enough to make my point.<br /><br /><em><strong>"It affects the "predicted" size, age, the amount of presumed "dark matter" and a host of other issues that will absolutely defy the current "predictions" of Lambda-CDM theory entirely.&nbsp; So much for the "predictive" abilities of Lambda-CDM theory.<br /><br />Of course, the optimist in me would probably note that this might actually help reduce the metaphysical baggage by another 5%-10%, but then Lambda-CMD theory would still be based on 90 metaphysicsl constructs, with inflation thrown in to get the party started.<br /><br />Even still, what value was there in Lambda-CDM theory two days ago?&nbsp; It was not accurate.&nbsp; It wasn't even *close* to accurate. <br /><br />Yes, and a lot less "dark matter" is now needed to explain the "missing mass" from our previously flawed calculations.<br /><br />So now the dark matter components of Lamda-CDM theory will have to revided downward, the baronic mass will have to be at least doubled, and Lamba-CDM theory will have to be revised in terms of how EM field effect the baryonic mass that was just added to the system.<br /><br />This week we learned that there is *at least* twice as much normal matter in a galaxy than we first believed.<br /><br />At least 1/5th of your "dark matter" has been replaced with normal matter in just the last week alone.<br /><br />I am sure that a new Lamba-CDM "light" model will emerge with more baryonic matter and less dark stuff.&nbsp; It wil in fact be 5-6% less metaphysical than current theory, and I will be 5% more satisified with it as a result.<br /><br />In the case of dark matter, we know that there is a *signficant* (minimum 100%) error in the measurements.<br /><br />The problem is the emprical side of Lambda-CDM theory is about to jump by 100% overnight.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />This information increases the amount of indentified baryonic mass by a factor of two, and reduces the metaphysical "dark matter" fudge factor accordingly.<br /><br />The fact that they have already been shown to be off by 100% should trouble you greatly.&nbsp; That's a lot by anyone's standards."<br /></strong></em><br /><br />Now, I have shown through the same information that is available to all of us that each and every statement you made above is quite simply false and the best response you can come up with is:<br /><br /><em><strong>"It would still be a triumph for emprical science any way you want to rationalize the change in ratios.&nbsp; The more that times goes by, the less the "predictions" of Lamda-CDM/inflation model has accurately "predicted"."<br /></strong></em><br />This is nothing more than a sensationalized statement with nothing to support it.&nbsp; Based on the numbers that I could dig up, it is shown that the ~20% increase to stellar mass (I believe this is solely referring to the central bulge which would make it less than 20% overall for the galaxy, but I could be wrong and will just leave it at 20%) would require an adjustment of stellar matter from .005 to .006 of the overall composition of the LambdaCDM model.&nbsp; That's 1/10 of 1%.&nbsp; I don't know what the statistical margins of error are, but .1% is probably within the rim of the toilet.<br /><br />I'd be willing to entertain your claims I quoted above provided you back them up with some numbers and sources.&nbsp; Until, I just want passersby reading this thread to understand that those are nothing more than unsupported opinions and have zero bearing on the merits of these findings.<br /><br /><br />The original point of this thread was not only to discuss the topic of the article, but was a reaction about how people tend to overreact when adjustments and revisions are made to theories and the woo woo crowd jumps all over them when they don't even have the facts.&nbsp; Assumptions are made, what facts they may have are manipulated, and conclusions are completely overblown to support their agenda.&nbsp; Thanks for participating, Michael.&nbsp; You provided an excellent example. <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]

<p>Once upon a time in a land far far away someone made a post regarding some recent analysis of astronomical data that concluded that there was a significant amount of light attentuation due to dust.</p><p>Does anyone have any thoughts on the implications of that analysis, <strong>other than</strong> implications for and Electrical Universe hypothesis or some attempt to discredit the Big Bang theory ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once upon a time in a land far far away someone made a post regarding some recent analysis of astronomical data that concluded that there was a significant amount of light attentuation due to dust.Does anyone have any thoughts on the implications of that analysis, other than implications for and Electrical Universe hypothesis or some attempt to discredit the Big Bang theory ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well, in all fairness, I did invite the challenge with my comments in the very first post of the thread.&nbsp; I'm as much guilty as anyone.&nbsp; To be quite honest, I thought it would be amuzing watching folks stumble all over this one trying fit it in with their conceptions of an invalid theory.&nbsp;</p><p>I've noticed not only here, but elsewhere that the standard candles effectiveness has come under fire.&nbsp; I've stated before that I though this dust wouldn't affect their effectiveness much, if at all.&nbsp; Galactic dust not only dims the objects, but it also scatters blue light and makes objects appear more red. If the color of an object is known, and Type Ia are quite predictable as they evolve, then the observed light can be corrected. To do this, you must first determine the amount of dust with infrared. Photons from the SNe are absorbed by the dust, heat the dust, and are reemitted in infrared, thus determining the amount of extinction. All this can be factored. Dealing with dust extinction is not something new... just the scale is a bit suprising and some recalibration will need to be done. </p><p>It would appear galactic formation and evolution is the main issue here, but so little is really known that this extra matter in the galaxy just adds to the complexity. </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>