Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #648588 > unrolled thread

Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 04:24 -0700
    Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:23 +0000
      Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 06:41 -0700
        Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 14:44 -0500
          Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 12:52 -0700
            Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:26 +0000
            Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 15:50 +0000
              Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:56 -0700
                Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 17:12 +0000
                  Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 12:37 -0700
                    Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 20:17 +0000
                    Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:38 -0500
                      Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 09:12 -0700
                        Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:49 -0500
                          Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-06 19:08 +0000
                            Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 14:20 -0500
                              Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-06 14:24 -0500
                              Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:27 -0700
                                Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 14:49 -0500
                                  Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 15:00 -0500
                                Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-07 19:51 +0000
    Re: The British use the word "dark" when they mean "unseen". pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 18:03 -0700
    Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 06:26 -0700
      Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 22:08 -0700
        Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:25 -0500
        Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:47 -0700
          Re: Christianity is wrong, but useful. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-11 18:08 -0400
            Re: Christianity is wrong, but useful. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-12 14:15 +0000
              Re: Christianity is wrong, but useful. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 07:39 -0700
    Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 09:28 -0700
      Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 09:35 -0700
    Re: Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 09:32 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#648588 — Is there any direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy?

GR fails in the ultra large scale.  As far as I know, only GR requires dark matter.  Other than that there is no evidence for dark matter.  I would rather have GR a failure to scale, than believe in dark matter.  Has any work been done on alternative theories of gravitation that do not require dark matter?

I believe dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the universe.  Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe is accelerating its expansion?  Has any work been done on alternative theories that do not require dark energy?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#648595

<alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> GR fails in the ultra large scale.  As far as I know, only GR requires
> dark matter.  Other than that there is no evidence for dark matter.  I
> would rather have GR a failure to scale, than believe in dark matter.  

Why? And why should this be settled by personal preference?
And what's your alternative?

> Has any work been done on alternative theories of gravitation that do not
> require dark matter?

Yes, of course. Google is your friend. 

> 
> I believe dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the
> universe.  Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe is
> accelerating its expansion?  Has any work been done on alternative
> theories that do not require dark energy?

Dark energy is consistent with GR, but GR doesn't predict it, any more than
GR predicts the amount or distribution of ordinary matter. Why would it?

> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648597

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:53:41 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> > GR fails in the ultra large scale.  As far as I know, only GR requires
> > dark matter.  Other than that there is no evidence for dark matter.  I
> > would rather have GR a failure to scale, than believe in dark matter.  
> 
> Why? And why should this be settled by personal preference?
> And what's your alternative?

Many scientists use their intuition initially to help them.  Then they verify their theories with data.  

There doesn't have to be an alternative.  Ultra large scale behaviour may be unpredictable to ordinary humans.

> 
> > Has any work been done on alternative theories of gravitation that do not
> > require dark matter?
> 
> Yes, of course. Google is your friend. 
> 
> > 
> > I believe dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the
> > universe.  Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe is
> > accelerating its expansion?  Has any work been done on alternative
> > theories that do not require dark energy?
> 
> Dark energy is consistent with GR, but GR doesn't predict it, any more than
> GR predicts the amount or distribution of ordinary matter. Why would it?

Doesn't GR require dark energy to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 
> 
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648627

On 9/4/17 8:41 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:53:41 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> GR fails in the ultra large scale.  As far as I know, only GR requires
>>> dark matter.  Other than that there is no evidence for dark matter.  I
>>> would rather have GR a failure to scale, than believe in dark matter.
>>
>> Why? And why should this be settled by personal preference?
>> And what's your alternative?
> 
> Many scientists use their intuition initially to help them.  Then they verify their theories with data.
> 
> There doesn't have to be an alternative.  Ultra large scale behaviour may be unpredictable to ordinary humans.

I'm not keen on your defense of "gut-feel" physics. That only works for 
people well trained in the field.

I'm also not keen on your "I'm not on a campaign to find an answer, I'm 
on a campaign to cast doubt on current attempts at an answer" approach 
to things.

> 
>>
>>> Has any work been done on alternative theories of gravitation that do not
>>> require dark matter?
>>
>> Yes, of course. Google is your friend.
>>
>>>
>>> I believe dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the
>>> universe.  Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe is
>>> accelerating its expansion?  Has any work been done on alternative
>>> theories that do not require dark energy?
>>
>> Dark energy is consistent with GR, but GR doesn't predict it, any more than
>> GR predicts the amount or distribution of ordinary matter. Why would it?
> 
> Doesn't GR require dark energy to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe?

To explain it, yes. However, what you're talking about is a fit to data, 
not an ab initio prediction of the theory itself.

Newton's second law doesn't predict what forces are in play, but it can 
tell you about a force you didn't previously take into account, by 
fitting to the observed acceleration.

> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>>
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648631

Odd
"

Newton's second law doesn't predict what forces are in play, but it can 
tell you about a force you didn't previously take into account, by .."

You're deluded.
You're talking pure nonsense.
'We get the wrong answer, but that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff.
What a fool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648690

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> 
> Newton's second law doesn't predict what forces are in play, but it can 
> tell you about a force you didn't previously take into account, by .."
> 
> You're deluded.
> You're talking pure nonsense.
> 'We get the wrong answer, but that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff.
> What a fool.
> 

That's how neutrinos were discovered. Fools?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648776

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"

>Newton's second law doesn't predict what forces are in play, but it can 
>tell you about a force you didn't previously take into account, by .."

>You're deluded.
>You're talking pure nonsense.
>'We get the wrong answer, but that tells us that we only need X amount
>of unknown stuff.
>What a fool.

We get the wrong answer for the weight of these boxes. They are too heavy,
but that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648778

MM
"We get the wrong answer for the weight of these boxes. They are too heavy, "

Yes. You get the wrong answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648779

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"We get the wrong answer for the weight of these boxes. They are too heavy, "

>Yes. You get the wrong answer.

Which was the problem.  The galaxies were too heavy, compared to the visible
mass.  But that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff in them.

See how simple DM is?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648797

MM
"- show quoted text -
Which was the problem.  The galaxies were too heavy, compared to the visible 
mass.  But that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff in them. 

See how simple DM is? "

Or your theory of Gravity is backwards, which should have been apparent when Levi-Schumacher SPLASHED instead of going right THROUGH that 'gas giant', Jupiter. But you can't cure stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648802

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"- show quoted text -
>Which was the problem.  The galaxies were too heavy, compared to the visible 
>mass.  But that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff in them. 

>See how simple DM is? "

>Or your theory of Gravity is backwards,

As Odd repeatedly told you, alternate possibilities are being looked at. However,
the current model of gravity works so well, it would be a large (and unlikely)
surprise to have to make a significant change to it.

>which should have been apparent when Levi-Schumacher SPLASHED instead of going
>right THROUGH that 'gas giant', Jupiter.

Say what?  Comet S-L broke into pieces during a previous close encounter with
Jupiter (it went within the Roche Limit) so when it impacted, it was multiple
bodies. There was a line of black marks.

Why would you think *anything* could go through Jupiter?  Jupiter is HUGE and
there's a lot of dense gas between any two parts of it.  Also, because Jupiter's
gravity is so strong, anything approaching it will be going VERY fast and with
all that energy, will burn right up.  (most meteors striking mere Earth burn up)

>But you can't cure stupid.

Yes, you prove yourself incurable daily, don't you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648894

On 9/5/17 2:37 PM, john wrote:
> MM
> "- show quoted text -
> Which was the problem.  The galaxies were too heavy, compared to the visible
> mass.  But that tells us that we only need X amount of unknown stuff in them.
> 
> See how simple DM is? "
> 
> Or your theory of Gravity is backwards, which should have been apparent when Levi-Schumacher SPLASHED instead of going right THROUGH that 'gas giant', Jupiter. But you can't cure stupid.
> 

You do know that meteors have a visible splash in our atmosphere, right? 
As viewed from outside?

That a splash does not necessarily mean on the surface of a liquid?



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648913

Odd
"- show quoted text -
You do know that meteors have a visible splash in our atmosphere, right? 
As viewed from outside? 

That a splash does not necessarily mean on the surface of a liquid? 
- show quoted text -"
You do know that the marks on Jupiter persisted for several revolutions?

You do know that nothing is not something, and something is not nothing, don't you?

I still find it funny that not even a magnetic field surrounding galactic star arms makes you believe they are real.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648927

On 9/6/17 11:12 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "- show quoted text -
> You do know that meteors have a visible splash in our atmosphere, right?
> As viewed from outside?
> 
> That a splash does not necessarily mean on the surface of a liquid?
> - show quoted text -"
> You do know that the marks on Jupiter persisted for several revolutions?

Yes. So does the atmospheric splash from a volcano here on earth. What's 
your point?

> 
> You do know that nothing is not something, and something is not nothing, don't you?
> 
> I still find it funny that not even a magnetic field surrounding galactic star arms makes you believe they are real.

John, here you are making up shit again. No one has ever said that 
galactic arms aren't real. Ocean waves are real too, and the water from 
one wave migrates to the next. What is clearly wrong is your claim that 
galactic arms are PERMANENT, not intermixed, isolated from each other 
and from everything else in the galaxy,

Do you understand that water waves don't have to be permanent, 
un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?

Do you understand that galactic arms don't have to be permanent, 
un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?

This John-law that says that real things are permanent and everlasting 
-- where did it come from? If you don't know, ask if your brain is 
permanent and everlasting.

John -- TRY THINKING BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR YAP.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648943

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 9/6/17 11:12 AM, john wrote:

>> I still find it funny that not even a magnetic field surrounding
>> galactic star arms makes you believe they are real.

>John, here you are making up shit again. No one has ever said that 
>galactic arms aren't real. Ocean waves are real too, and the water from 
>one wave migrates to the next. What is clearly wrong is your claim that 
>galactic arms are PERMANENT, not intermixed, isolated from each other 
>and from everything else in the galaxy,

>Do you understand that water waves don't have to be permanent, 
>un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?

>Do you understand that galactic arms don't have to be permanent, 
>un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?

Hey John, check out this animation that shows how galactic spiral arms
can be standing waves.  The animation starts with a bunch of things
orbiting a common center, the orbits pulled into ellipses and the
ellipse axes rotated according to distance.  Presto - a two armed
spiral galaxy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMReQ6hVw5s

Someone drew it, so it must be real.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648944

On 9/6/17 2:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 9/6/17 11:12 AM, john wrote:
> 
>>> I still find it funny that not even a magnetic field surrounding
>>> galactic star arms makes you believe they are real.
> 
>> John, here you are making up shit again. No one has ever said that
>> galactic arms aren't real. Ocean waves are real too, and the water from
>> one wave migrates to the next. What is clearly wrong is your claim that
>> galactic arms are PERMANENT, not intermixed, isolated from each other
>> and from everything else in the galaxy,
> 
>> Do you understand that water waves don't have to be permanent,
>> un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?
> 
>> Do you understand that galactic arms don't have to be permanent,
>> un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?
> 
> Hey John, check out this animation that shows how galactic spiral arms
> can be standing waves.  The animation starts with a bunch of things
> orbiting a common center, the orbits pulled into ellipses and the
> ellipse axes rotated according to distance.  Presto - a two armed
> spiral galaxy!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMReQ6hVw5s
> 
> Someone drew it, so it must be real.
> 

And this one, which shows how good the dynamical simulations really are, 
comparing them to observational cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0XNyTp5brM

John, compare this professional simulation from the HST team with your 
CAD program animations.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648946

On 9/6/2017 2:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/6/17 2:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/6/17 11:12 AM, john wrote:
>>
>>>> I still find it funny that not even a magnetic field surrounding
>>>> galactic star arms makes you believe they are real.
>>
>>> John, here you are making up shit again. No one has ever said that
>>> galactic arms aren't real. Ocean waves are real too, and the water from
>>> one wave migrates to the next. What is clearly wrong is your claim that
>>> galactic arms are PERMANENT, not intermixed, isolated from each other
>>> and from everything else in the galaxy,
>>
>>> Do you understand that water waves don't have to be permanent,
>>> un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?
>>
>>> Do you understand that galactic arms don't have to be permanent,
>>> un-intermixed, and isolated from each other to be real?
>>
>> Hey John, check out this animation that shows how galactic spiral arms
>> can be standing waves.  The animation starts with a bunch of things
>> orbiting a common center, the orbits pulled into ellipses and the
>> ellipse axes rotated according to distance.  Presto - a two armed
>> spiral galaxy!
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMReQ6hVw5s
>>
>> Someone drew it, so it must be real.
>>
> 
> And this one, which shows how good the dynamical simulations really are, 
> comparing them to observational cases.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0XNyTp5brM
> 
> John, compare this professional simulation from the HST team with your 
> CAD program animations.
> 

amazing how 'complexity' comes from  'simple'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648947

Odd and Michael
Where are the helical magnetic fields?
Oh- right- gotta figure them in AFTER they were found.
Funny how your model is post-diction rather than pre-diction

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648950

On 9/6/17 2:27 PM, john wrote:
> Odd and Michael
> Where are the helical magnetic fields?
> Oh- right- gotta figure them in AFTER they were found.
> Funny how your model is post-diction rather than pre-diction
> 

John, you have a silly idea about how scientific theories work.
The theory of galactic formation makes a lot of predictions which have 
been put to test -- enough to assert that the theory is well supported 
by data.

This does not mean that EVERY observed feature in a galaxy is included 
in the predictions of the theory.

I will give you an example of this. Darwin initiated a pretty good 
theory about how new species arise. It has made numerous specific and 
quantitative predictions which have been confirmed in observations. 
Natural selection as a theory is therefore well supported by data. 
However, natural selection does not tell you WHICH species will arise, 
or why each species has the morphological characteristics that it does.

You are barking up the wrong tree by criticizing the theory of galactic 
formation because it did not specifically predict a particular feature 
of galaxies. You say your idea (it's not theory) DOES make a prediction 
of this feature, and therefore it should be treated seriously.

However:
- Your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. That word quantitative is 
critical. An idea that makes no quantitative predictions is 
scientifically stillborn.
- Your idea also makes other firm predictions that are in direct 
conflict with observations. You would like to have those conflicts 
ignored. Doesn't happen. Your theory is dead.

You may not like either of these notes. Doesn't change a fucking thing.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648953

On 9/6/17 2:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/6/17 2:27 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd and Michael
>> Where are the helical magnetic fields?
>> Oh- right- gotta figure them in AFTER they were found.
>> Funny how your model is post-diction rather than pre-diction
>>
> 
> John, you have a silly idea about how scientific theories work.
> The theory of galactic formation makes a lot of predictions which have 
> been put to test -- enough to assert that the theory is well supported 
> by data.
> 
> This does not mean that EVERY observed feature in a galaxy is included 
> in the predictions of the theory.
> 
> I will give you an example of this. Darwin initiated a pretty good 
> theory about how new species arise. It has made numerous specific and 
> quantitative predictions which have been confirmed in observations. 
> Natural selection as a theory is therefore well supported by data. 
> However, natural selection does not tell you WHICH species will arise, 
> or why each species has the morphological characteristics that it does.
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree by criticizing the theory of galactic 
> formation because it did not specifically predict a particular feature 
> of galaxies. You say your idea (it's not theory) DOES make a prediction 
> of this feature, and therefore it should be treated seriously.
> 
> However:
> - Your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. That word quantitative is 
> critical. An idea that makes no quantitative predictions is 
> scientifically stillborn.
> - Your idea also makes other firm predictions that are in direct 
> conflict with observations. You would like to have those conflicts 
> ignored. Doesn't happen. Your theory is dead.
> 
> You may not like either of these notes. Doesn't change a fucking thing.
> 

And just to hammer this in, John:

Do you know the difference between
- The theory makes no prediction one way or the other about this 
observed feature
- The theory makes a firm prediction that is in conflict with an 
observed feature
?

Do you know the difference?

One is a theory-killer, the other is not.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web