|
The truth is this:
Fall of the angel of light resulted in the fall of light speed. The slowing light generated massive red shift. And was now moving slower to be affected by gravity.
Dark matter/dark energy was an entity invented to make the naturalistic explanation fit. Occam's razor would removd it.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn those angels! They're always confusing things!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh they realise it, alright.
I bet they all regret coining the phrase 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'
Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong. Could well be the latter (after all, Newton was) in which case DM and DE are just letters in an equation.
But don't be fooled into thinking that they are actually Matter or Energy
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong.
I'll go for :
2: The effect that was recorded was the most minuscule amount of data (equivalent to a handful of pixels on a screen the size of a football field), and could have a thousand different explanations. The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one.
That's the joy of astronomy: You can spout any old bollocks, and no-one will live long enough to prove that you're wrong.
How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data), but we have to send ships to the Moon, Mars, Saturn, etc?
"Hey! We're real smart! We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What? Oh. Well, how should I know how many planets there are in our solar system? That kinda stuff's Hard, man!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one.
I don't think many people would deny that it could be the wrong one...
Mark_Wallace wrote: How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data),
Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Mark_Wallace wrote: We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What?
For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits.
Similarly with supernovae - there's a theory, the maths holds together and observations support the theory. sure, they could be caused by aliens' wars, time travelling weebles or bad spaceship drivers - but there's little reason to discount the theory until either a better theory comes along, or observations show the theory to be wrong.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Indeed, but what troubles me is that the observations are of such tiny amounts of light/radio waves, that have traveled God knows how far and through God knows what (e.g. if it travels through a tiny patch of blue dust, in the billions of miles between here and its source, it becomes more yellow), so grand assumptions simply cannot be made.
But grand observations are made, nonetheless, and compounded with further grand assumptions, then backed up with numbers that are tailored to fit, until we have a model of the universe that makes very little sense, and is constantly being challenged by observations that are "more accurate" because they are backed up by three photons more than the previous observations.
And nowhere along the way does anyone admit that it's all guesswork -- they call it "great, new discoveries", rather than admit it's all guesses.
We need more data, not more guesses. Guessing is easy, but getting it right requires more than 2000 photons per month.
_Maxxx_ wrote: For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits.
But so would a thousand simpler theories -- i.e. plain ol' boring dust or temperature gradients could far more easily be proven to be the cause of wibbles.
But that wouldn't make people famous or get them big research grants, would it?
And when a few more quanta of the EMS arrive, which should easily prove that something else is the case, they'll just "massage" their Grand Unprovable Theories to make them fit the new data.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: tiny amounts of light
The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field Image, a study of galaxies as old as 13.5 billion years at distances up to 60,000 light years was a composite of 288 exposures of approximately 20 minutes. Many degrees of magnitude more than 2000 photons collected in considerably less than a month I would suggest!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about the (was it five or six?) novae at Extreme ranges that were used to cobble together the ridiculous "dark energy" theory.
60,000 light years is just down the road.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: Physics, needs abnormal people, who are able to imagine the world in an unusual way.
I have to disagree with that.
IMO, Physics needs people who can see the bleeding obvious without getting bogged down by ideas that sort-of work but don't.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what 'shape' space/time takes in the slightest. The flat rubber sheet is, after all, a huge abstraction for the purposes of demonstrating the displacement theory of gravity. What 'dark energy' is supposed to explain is not expansion per se but the perceived acceleration of that expansion against all logic if you accept the standard cosmological model. Personally I can't help thinking that if you have to start making up stuff to fill in the gaps in your model than it's probably time to bin the model but then my living doesn't come from grants for research in theoretical physics!
I did wonder to myself the other day if the explanation could simply be that as inflation increases, and the distance between masses increases along with it, gravitational drag is reduced, ie. the brakes are taken off, but then I figured if I'd thought of that there's probably a couple of thousand papers out there telling me why it's rubbish. Sometimes it's easier to sleep at night just knowing what you don't know.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it's all based on "observations" of a handful of supernovae seeming to cool faster than expected, and an assumption based on that that they're moving further away quicker than was previously assumed.
Me, I reckon that since we don't know precisely the dynamics of supernovae, something else is happening either to make them cool faster than anticipated, or to block/absorb some of the heat, again making them appear to cool faster than anticipated.
Something like an expanding cloud of dust that's recently been fused into higher-order atoms and molecules would likely have that kind of effect -- but what are the chances of something like that conveniently surrounding a supernova, eh?
Nah, it's much more likely that some idiot needed to publish something radical quickly, or lose his research grant there's some mysterious "dark" thingummy that's at back of it all.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
When peer reviewed papers are, erm, peer reviewed that's exactly the sort of question that gets asked.
And just to be picky, they're not 'moving away more quickly' they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger.
the analogy of the 'raisins in dough' so often used is only legitimate if raisins also expand in the oven.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Maxxx wrote: if raisins also expand in the oven
Which of course they do, absorbing moisture from the mix.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Weeeellllll that depends on how dry they are, how moist the dough and how long you cook for, and what is the cosmological constant...
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger.
I think you might have misunderstood something you read, there.
Nothing's getting bigger (well, novae get bigger because they're explosions), it's all just moving apart. It's the universe that's expanding, not the suns, planets, and teaspoons.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
you're right. I was wrong!
damn - I'm as confused as when I found that the Hubble constant isn't!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Not your fault.
There's so much written on the topic using such poorly crafted language that it's not surprising that people get wrong ideas.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Some sorta "dark energy" is driving some posters here.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that when these ideas are presented above, it is assumed that the ball(s) are attracted by a force below the rubber surface. I might say that it is in the center of that expanding rubber "balloon". Now here is an interesting clue. It has been discovered that not just the universe is expanding, the expansion is accelerating. The balls or mass-objects are not attracted to anything, it is the moving rubber surface that is accelerating toward the mass-objects(balls). If the expansion of the universe was just at a constant rate, there would be no gravity. It all runs on dark energy. It's just a thought. No, I didn't do the math.
|
|
|
|
|
ronDW wrote: it is assumed that the ball(s) are attracted by a force below the rubber surface
Nah, it's just an analogy that, although it uses three dimensions to demonstrate the movement of smaller objects, only demonstrates the effect in two-dimensions.
ronDW wrote: It has been discovered that not just the universe is expanding, the expansion is accelerating
It really hasn't been "discovered"; it's been huge-leap-of-silly-supposition assumed, based on virtually zero data.
ronDW wrote: If the expansion of the universe was just at a constant rate, there would be no gravity
This is true. Coulomb's Law (known only as the Inverse-square law, in the US, because Coulomb wasn't American) wouldn't have it otherwise.
ronDW wrote: I didn't do the math
Nor did I, but Physics isn't about Maths; it just uses it to confirm observations.
And these guys didn't do the Maths, either. They used statistical analysis -- and real mathematicians don't like statistical analyses.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Maxxx wrote: we represent 'spacetime' as a flat sheet (usually black rubber with white grid lines)
That's just a projection onto a 2D surface so that the uneducated masses can go "oooh, I understand Einstein now" when they visit the science center.
In reality, it is the three dimensional space we live in that is curved. It looks straight because there's so little curvature created by the planets or even the sun. But it'll look a lot different near a black hole!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Or even a long way away from a galaxy!
Exactly!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: That's just a projection onto a 2D surface so that the uneducated masses can go "oooh, I understand Einstein now" when they visit the science center.
Very true - but a convenient demonstration nonetheless.
Marc Clifton wrote: But it'll look a lot different near a black hole!
True - but in the sheet analogy the black hole is a vertical-sided well - so the demonstration model holds up quite well.
ripple the sheet and you get gravitational waves
stretch it - expansion of the universe (though have to stretch your balls too - which some may find a less than pleasant experience :grin
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
