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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#649064

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd and Michael
>Where are the helical magnetic fields?

That animation dealt with gravity only.

Since helical magnetic fields are quite small compared to gravity, they
can be disregarded.

>Oh- right- gotta figure them in AFTER they were found.

Only if they significantly affect the error, which they do not.

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

#648698 — Re: The British use the word "dark" when they mean "unseen".

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:46:42 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> The British use the word "dark" when they mean "unseen".
 
>   UnSeen side of the Moon:  dark side of the moon.

These are 2 different things. During this past eclipse, for example, the unseen side of the moon was fully illuminated by the Sun, but remained unseen by anyone on Earth, whereas the dark side of the moon was facing us 100%, for all to see.

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

#648893

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> GR fails in the ultra large scale.

Can you explain how you think it fails?

>  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.

Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
but in science it is all about the data.

GR only makes the equivalence between
 inertial mass and gravitational mass.

GR can still stand, even if gravity does not
exactly follow Newton's inverse square law.


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

Of course.
 (and that doesn't include the postings
of AP or PV)
> 
> I believe

I repeat:
Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
but in science it is all about the data.

> dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the universe.

That is the current hypothesis.
What dark energy is is still unknown. (not a fact, not even a theory yet)
What is known is the data suggesting the accelerated expansion.

>  Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe
> is accelerating its expansion?

No, the data requires an explanation.
GR is not affected by its presence or absence.

>  Has any work been done on alternative theories
> that do not require dark energy?

Again, of course.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor

Ed

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

#649013

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:56:49 PM UTC+5:30, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > GR fails in the ultra large scale.
> 
> Can you explain how you think it fails?
> 
> >  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.
> 
> Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
> but in science it is all about the data.

Yes, science is about data.  But it is also about belief.  You have to believe your senses.  You have to believe in the integrity of other scientists.

> 
> GR only makes the equivalence between
>  inertial mass and gravitational mass.
> 
> GR can still stand, even if gravity does not
> exactly follow Newton's inverse square law.
> 
> 
> >  Has any work been done on alternative theories of
> > gravitation that do not require dark matter?
> 
> Of course.
>  (and that doesn't include the postings
> of AP or PV)
> > 
> > I believe
> 
> I repeat:
> Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
> but in science it is all about the data.
> 
> > dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> That is the current hypothesis.
> What dark energy is is still unknown. (not a fact, not even a theory yet)
> What is known is the data suggesting the accelerated expansion.

Some have suggested that those who believe in accelerated expansion are mistaken.  Who's data do you believe?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

> 
> >  Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe
> > is accelerating its expansion?
> 
> No, the data requires an explanation.
> GR is not affected by its presence or absence.
> 
> >  Has any work been done on alternative theories
> > that do not require dark energy?
> 
> Again, of course.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor
> 
> Ed

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

#649071

On 9/7/17 12:08 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:56:49 PM UTC+5:30, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> GR fails in the ultra large scale.
>>
>> Can you explain how you think it fails?
>>
>>>   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.
>>
>> Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
>> but in science it is all about the data.
> 
> Yes, science is about data.  But it is also about belief.  You have to believe your senses.  You have to believe in the integrity of other scientists.

Yes, of course this is true. If you believe instead that science as an 
entire venture and that scientists on the whole are corrupt, then of 
course you will not believe anything produced by them. There are people 
who actually feel this way and still spend a huge fraction of their time 
on newsgroups devoted to science. It would then be like someone who 
thinks that astrology is a monumental fraud and a waste of time, then 
going ahead and spending all day on astrology discussion boards.

So then the real question is, how do you determine whether what they are 
saying is true or not. The right answer is that you'd have to do the 
experiments to test those ideas yourself. The wrong answer is to "think 
analytically" or to "use common sense" to determine what the truth is. 
This is effectively saying that to do good science, one uses religious 
faith instead.

> 
>>
>> GR only makes the equivalence between
>>   inertial mass and gravitational mass.
>>
>> GR can still stand, even if gravity does not
>> exactly follow Newton's inverse square law.
>>
>>
>>>   Has any work been done on alternative theories of
>>> gravitation that do not require dark matter?
>>
>> Of course.
>>   (and that doesn't include the postings
>> of AP or PV)
>>>
>>> I believe
>>
>> I repeat:
>> Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
>> but in science it is all about the data.
>>
>>> dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
>>
>> That is the current hypothesis.
>> What dark energy is is still unknown. (not a fact, not even a theory yet)
>> What is known is the data suggesting the accelerated expansion.
> 
> Some have suggested that those who believe in accelerated expansion are mistaken.  Who's data do you believe?
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
> 
>>
>>>   Does GR require dark energy to explain why the universe
>>> is accelerating its expansion?
>>
>> No, the data requires an explanation.
>> GR is not affected by its presence or absence.
>>
>>>   Has any work been done on alternative theories
>>> that do not require dark energy?
>>
>> Again, of course.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>
>> Ed
> 


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

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

#649132

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 1:08:55 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:56:49 PM UTC+5:30, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
I (Ed)said:
> > I repeat:
> > Believe or do not believe, that is your choice,
> > but in science it is all about the data.
> > 
> > > dark energy is what is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
> > 
> > That is the current hypothesis.
> > What dark energy is is still unknown. (not a fact, not even a theory yet)
> > What is known is the data suggesting the accelerated expansion.
> 
> Some have suggested that those who believe in
> accelerated expansion are mistaken.  Who's data do you believe?
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
Ah, I see. You think scientists suddenly arrive at the solution
to a problem. No, it is not like your science homework.

So first let me remind you, the data is the same.


It may have been collected by one group of scientists,
or in this case, many groups of scientists.

then scientists examine the data. Sometimes the same
scientists, but the data is published and shared so
other groups as well. In this case, they considered
the data of galaxy motion and looking at the speeds
arrived at plots and measurements that best fit a
curve that showed galactic velocities were increasing
over time, moving faster away from each other.

Part of the analysis involves assumptions about the data,
like how do you estimate the distance of galaxies that
are far away and extremely far away.

So that group published papers saying the universe expansion
is getting faster. Others examined that information and
said there must be something causing that acceleration.
They suggested it must be some form of energy, but
not knowing what form of energy it may be, referred to
it as dark energy.

Much like X-rays were named, where the X stood for unknown.

Others meanwhile are claiming that maybe some of the assumptions
used to analyze the galactic data are wrong so that the
expansion may not be accelerating. One implication of that
is the need for dark energy may go away. There are other
implications that result so we may end up with some other
factor we need to look for.

The point of this is, all the analysis is not complete.
Dark (unknown) energy is only a proposed idea that has
a lot of support. So it is just the best explaination
currently. Scientists are willing to accept a hypothesis
may be wrong. Right now Dark Energy is just the working
idea. If more data or a better analysis of current data
shows something different, scientists are willing to
change.

There is a difference between accepting a theory
and believing a theory. Scientists may use the
word believe, but they really mean accept.

Science works under a premise that
all theories are wrong, but some are useful.

Lastly, I'll mention that scientists are human.
A scientist may vehemently defend a concept.
But it is about the collection of scientists
working together so that in the long term
we learn more about the universe and how it
works.

HTH,
  Ed

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

#649485 — Re: Christianity is wrong, but useful.

On 9/11/2017 4:57 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>    We're all just robots, programmed by nature to consume.
>    The only difference between us and the sun, is how/what we consume.

Proof by assertion! Who cn question that.

>    All theories are wrong, but some are useful.
>    Christianity is wrong, but useful.

Rolf, just used his superpowers to figure this one out.

>    If a delusion benefits a (nice) "kook", he'll go with it,
>    even if he, and everyone else, knows it's a delusion.

Works for for Rolf.

>    Intentionally fooling oneself ( via SciFi, ideology or religion )
>    can be profoundly beneficial; yet, intrinsically, no one is free.

Rolf thinks HIS religion is right and all others are "wrong".
>    Quantum Correlations are acausal, like a series of dice tosses.
>    The Correlations say nothing about the next roll of the dice,
>    but they _can_ tell you that, in 100 tosses,
>    2 ( snake eyes ) happens less often than 7 ( 3 + 4, 1 + 6, etc. ).

>    Intrinsically, each toss is fully causal, not random.
>    SemiRandomness is SemiIgnorance, nothing more.

Rolf's ideaa are semi-random.

>    The ( four dimensional ) timescape is static, immutable;
>    the future is just as fixed as the past;
>    but only "the present" ( a sea of "here and now" events ) exists.

Rolf used his superpowers to make sure this was true before he posted it.

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

#649621 — Re: Christianity is wrong, but useful.

benj <benj@nobody.net> writes:

>On 9/11/2017 4:57 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>    We're all just robots, programmed by nature to consume.
>>    The only difference between us and the sun, is how/what we consume.

>Proof by assertion! Who cn question that.

Lots of unproven assertions.  I wonder if Jeff went off his meds or
something.

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

#649628 — Re: Christianity is wrong, but useful.

MM
"Lots of unproven assertions.  I wonder if Jeff went off his meds or .."

PLEASE don't go off yours, Michael 

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

#649044

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, alal...@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.  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

How much mass of this dark matter is expected?  

This solar system may be a good example of a larger then average percentage of "dark matter" to total matter.  If so, let's go with that to error on the side of caution.  Now any uncounted "dark matter" derived from theory must be somewhere "out there", no doubt.  It radiates, BTW, just not through glass, everyone knows that.

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

#649047

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, alal...@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.  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
> 
> How much mass of this dark matter is expected?  
> 
> This solar system may be a good example of a larger then average percentage of "dark matter" to total matter.  If so, let's go with that to error on the side of caution.  Now any uncounted "dark matter" derived from theory must be somewhere "out there", no doubt.  It radiates, BTW, just not through glass, everyone knows that.

accidental cross post:

This is Dara's Version]
Miss Lucy had a steam boat
The steamboat had a bell,
Miss Lucy went to heaven and the
Steamboat went to...
Hello operator
Please give me number nine
And if you disconnect me
I will chop off your...
Behind the 'fridgerator
There was a piece of glass
Miss Lucy sat upon it
And she cut her little...
Ask me no more questions
I'll tell you no more lies
The boys are in the bathroom
Pulling down their...
Flies are in the meadow
The bees are in the park
Miss Lucy and her boyfriend
Are kissing in the...
Dark is like a movie
A movie's like a show
A show is like a tv set
And that is all I know.

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

#649046

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 4:24:21 AM UTC-7, alal...@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.  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

Think of force of gravity needed  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web