Dark Flow

[makc]

what I said to Chris also goes to Orca

[harry]

G'day orca

I have read more about the BBT then you could possibly imagine. I can give you 1000's of papers on the subject supporting the theory.

and yet when you look at the evidence it is supported by ad hoc theories, it is very theoretical.

Knowing this, it is common science practice not to become emotional over any theory, but to keep on testing the grounds.

If you wish to support any theory with science, hey! thats great.

This is why this forum is

"Discuss anything astronomy related"

Imagine we all talked about the BBT and mainstream information. What then?

[Orca]

G'day orca

I have read more about the BBT then you could possibly imagine. I can give you 1000's of papers on the subject supporting the theory.

and yet when you look at the evidence it is supported by ad hoc theories, it is very theoretical.

Knowing this, it is common science practice not to become emotional over any theory, but to keep on testing the grounds.

If you wish to support any theory with science, hey! thats great.

This is why this forum is

"Discuss anything astronomy related"

Imagine we all talked about the BBT and mainstream information. What then?

So why not narrow your arguments within the framework of accepted theory instead of going off on tangents and the fringe?

Reading countless papers by who knows who, then saying to yourself, "meh, this can't be right," then looking for more creative papers...that's not how science works.

[harry]

G'day Orca

More I read the more I find how little we know.

If I did what you say, I would know less today then I did yesterday.

We live in the modern ERA not the stone age.

I agree that 80% of all the papers that I do read are not worth the paper they are written on.

But! the 20 % are fantastic, they are on the cutting edge of science.

Also I give credit to those 80% of papers that try, getting it wrong is not so bad.

What is wrong is people trying to direct the flow of information to the way they think and are offended that others think different and how dare they think that the BBT is not a theory.

[Orca]

G'day Orca
1. More I read the more I find how little we know.
If I did what you say, I would know less today then I did yesterday.

2. We live in the modern ERA not the stone age.

3. I agree that 80% of all the papers that I do read are not worth the paper they are written on.
But! the 20 % are fantastic, they are on the cutting edge of science.

4. What is wrong is people trying to direct the flow of information to the way they think and are offended that others think different and how dare they think that the BBT is not a theory.

1. What I was talking about is this: if you want to study cosmology, the place to start is basic astronomy, physics, and mathematics. These are the foundations of modern science. Fundamental understanding of scientific method allows us to develop critical thinking skills and gives us the tools to build on the knowledge of those who've come before us.

2. Interestingly, it is useful to understand the beginnings of astronomy to gain perspective on current science and beyond. Knowing what the earliest problems were and the various methods people used to overcome them helps us avoid pitfalls of the past as well as giving us insight into humanity's exploration of the universe. Why else do so many astronomy books being with Aristotle?

3. The trouble is your method of sorting between the 20 and 80 percent piles. Obvious pesudo-science aside...take any one paper that contained an alternative testable theory, including all the calculations, diagrams and data tables for the experiments and observations that support the theory, detailed instructions on how to repeat the experiments and observations. To be able to know whether it was scientifically viable to the degree of certainty you're speaking of...you'd have to do the experiments and calculations yourself!

That's right Harry. This is of course completely possible. That's the beauty of science; theories' supporting experiments can be repeated and thus verified by others. Of course, we aren't talking about testing the acceleration of gravity at sea level, are we? Problems in cosmology are not so easily solved and experiments are not so readily available. But at least there ought to be calculations you can verify (if you put in the time to learn the mathematical skills) or secondary data you can look up, or something.

I am willing to guess that you haven't. I imagine that you read a paper that aligns with your preconceived ideas and explains an alternative theory you find attractive in a way that makes you feel you've gotten a bit closer to understanding the universe. At the same time, this "clarity" you gain reassures you that BBT will be deposed in a matter of years (no matter how many years go by).

Just reading papers and grading them works great for film critics but not for making scientific claims as bold as you so often do.

4. This as been reiterated many times: the alternative theory bares the burden of proof. Mainstream science, continuing work in a framework of BBT, is not "shunning" or "controlling" alternative ideas. They are simply using scientific method.

I find it interesting that so many groups of people feel threatened by mainstream science. I think the thread that holds them together is that they live under ideological belief systems which they feel are threatened not just by apparently conflicting concepts but ultimately by the critical thinking that scientific method provides.

If this assumption applies to you, Harry, enjoy your current path because it won't change much at the rate it's going. You'll keep plodding along posting threads to fantastic papers that, any day, "will change the world of science." When credulous individuals like what they read, you'll call them free thinkers; when they question your posts within the perspective of GR or QM you'll tell them they are blind, stone-aged, controlled by the Cultural Science Machine, and what have you.

If this does not describe you, well, do something about it. Don't just sit there posting thread after thread filled with links to other people's papers. Get educated, get grants, do research, show us you're right. Show us you are brave enough to face the possibility that you are wrong. That's really what science is all about.

Otherwise we'll just keep doing rounds on message boards, and what good has that done us lately?

[apodman]

Well said, Orca. Quotably eloquent.

[The Code]

Hi Orca

I,m no good at math or spelling. Some would say I am illiterate. Snag is, the Universe does not do math either. Two singularities, But both different. One, is in a trillion black holes. And another that works differently. We both know how.

With a Wide range of ways to look for the answers, we all limited but to a few. Others just use there minds to solve problems. With imagination. Do you know anybody like that?


This has nothing to do with dark flow. Or does it?

[apodman]

the Universe does not do math

This is 100% wrong.

With a Wide range of ways to look for the answers, we all limited but to a few

This is 100% wrong.

Others just use there minds to solve problems. With imagination.

Anyone who tries to address modern astrophysical cosmology with imagination and no mathematics is delusional.

[Chris Peterson]

Others just use there minds to solve problems. With imagination.

Anyone who tries to address modern astrophysical cosmology with imagination and no mathematics is delusional.

I'd just say they are philosophers, not scientists. That's fine, but their observations are out of place on a science forum.

[The Code]

the Universe does not do math

This is 100% wrong.

With a Wide range of ways to look for the answers, we all limited but to a few

This is 100% wrong.

Others just use there minds to solve problems. With imagination.

Anyone who tries to address modern astrophysical cosmology with imagination and no mathematics is delusional.

I think you may delete this post if you do not like how it sounds apodman.

1

the Universe does not do math

This is 100% wrong. What is the maths of Dark matter/ And Dark Energy In a (%) to do with expansion And the BB? How do you crunch them numbers?

2 Which is wrong the first or last part? Do you live where everything is there for you? or do need to learn how to use a knife to survive before astronomy. Ie. Gut a chicken, Bone a fish. etc etc?

3 http://www.davar.net/MATH/PROBLEMS/EINSTEIN.HTM

Enjoy

[Chris Peterson]

This is 100% wrong. What is the maths of Dark matter/ And Dark Energy In a (%) to do with expansion And the BB? How do you crunch them numbers?

The properties of both dark matter and dark energy are explored only by using math. Dark matter is analyzed by studying its effects on gravitational motion (thus, the equations of Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity), and is studied theoretically by working with equations associated with the Standard Model of particle physics. Dark energy is analyzed by observing the apparent acceleration of the Universe with distance (photometric calculations, redshift calculations), and is studied theoretically by working with equations of quantum mechanics and GR which describe the very early Universe.

Neither of these things can be studied scientifically without using the theories of modern physics and the tool of mathematics.

[The Code]

That question was not set for you Chris. You know the questions I ask you Chris.

But well done. Mate. I really like the lose term ''theoretically'' Meaning nobodies got a clue.

[geckzilla]

Mark, you should have been an artist. Same with harry. Creativity, avant-garde, and the defenestration of logic are all welcome in this field.

[apodman]

Ah, but the Asterisk* is painted on the windward side of the house. If you defenestrate your logic here, it blows right back in on you. Throw it out the leeward side where soft winds may carry it to a happy resting place.

[Chris Peterson]

But well done. Mate. I really like the lose term ''theoretically'' Meaning nobodies got a clue.

In science, "theoretically" is not a loose term at all. In fact, it is rigorously defined and implies a rigorous analysis of observations. "Hypothetical" might be a little looser, if you're looking for a term. In the case of dark matter and dark energy, however, there is solid theory, which means people have some very good indication what's going on. It means they can consistently tie together observations, and it means they can reliably predict (using that nasty old math again) what they will see before they actually make a new observation.

[The Code]

But well done. Mate. I really like the lose term ''theoretically'' Meaning nobodies got a clue.

In science, "theoretically" is not a loose term at all. In fact, it is rigorously defined and implies a rigorous analysis of observations. "Hypothetical" might be a little looser, if you're looking for a term.( In the case of dark matter and dark energy, however, there is solid theory, which means people have some very good indication what's going on. It means they can consistently tie together observations, and it means they can reliably predict (using that nasty old math again) what they will see before they actually make a new observation.)

You must encapsulate m8 Because "Hypothetical" "theoretically" Changes with time. But i can go further than that. relativity, quantum Mechanics http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/uft.htm

Has a long way to go. And will never get there without You an Me working together And no more ridicule.

[harry]

G'day

Fhe best advice I had so far is Makc saying go and take the kids out and go fishing.

[makc]

...in this field.

and you should know

[Chris Peterson]

Because "Hypothetical" "theoretically" Changes with time.

No, they don't. Not, at least, for the last couple of centuries since the modern scientific method has become the standard for extending our knowledge of nature.

Maybe you mean that theory changes over time? Certainly, some theory is well developed and unchanging, and other is still being developed, and therefore does change. But that change isn't random. In nearly all cases, theory converges on truth. So we rarely see a radical shift, but usually just an evolutionary shift. At no point of this process does it mean what you earlier suggested, that "nobodies [sic] got a clue". A theory provides an objective, rational basis for believing something, and it means that there is a good chance that there is a reasonable element of truth in that belief, even if it doesn't represent the complete truth.

[The Code]

Maybe you mean that theory changes over time? Certainly, some theory is well developed and unchanging, and other is still being developed, and therefore does change. But that change isn't random. In nearly all cases, theory converges on truth.

That is what i meant Chris.

Another example, String theory. How does your DM/DE fall into place, Where 9 different dimensions? cause Gravity to be the weak force.?

[Chris Peterson]

Another example, String theory. How does your DM/DE fall into place, Where 9 different dimensions? cause Gravity to be the weak force.?

String theory is what could be called a "weak theory". It is mainly mathematical games, not something that is closely related to observation, and not something that has much in the way of testability. It is interesting, but not really worth considering too deeply at this point unless it's your area of research.

As I've pointed out before, using terms like "DM/DE" really detracts from any post, because it treats them as if they were somehow related, which they are not.

[The Code]

String theory is what could be called a "weak theory".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... -cambridge

OK mate. I,ll give it a miss. don,t want to end up at Cambridge do I ?

[Chris Peterson]

OK mate. I,ll give it a miss. don,t want to end up at Cambridge do I ?

That doesn't change the fact that string theory is weak. "Weak" doesn't mean bad, it doesn't mean it's not worth exploring, and it doesn't mean that it isn't being worked on by very talented people at important institutions. It only means that it is substantially untestable (and by that I mean that the people working with it haven't been able to propose many ways of testing it, not that it is simple untestable due to technological limitations).

Weak theory is the sort of thing that non-specialists might reasonably look at and think about, but it isn't something that non-specialists should be looking at as a replacement for more solid theory already in place, or that anybody should be looking at as more than a direction of study. And I think you'd find that most of the researchers working in this area would agree with that position.

[The Code]

That doesn't change the fact that string theory is weak. "Weak" doesn't mean bad, it doesn't mean it's not worth exploring, and it doesn't mean that it isn't being worked on by very talented people at important institutions. It only means that it is substantially untestable (and by that I mean that the people working with it haven't been able to propose many ways of testing it, not that it is simple untestable due to technological limitations).

Weak theory is the sort of thing that non-specialists might reasonably look at and think about, but it isn't something that non-specialists should be looking at as a replacement for more solid theory already in place, or that anybody should be looking at as more than a direction of study. And I think you'd find that most of the researchers working in this area would agree with that position.

Watch This ----->>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nslc4#p00503t2

[geckzilla]

...in this field.

and you should know

'Tis true. Mark took my statement as ridicule but such qualities can be quite admirable for artists. I actually wasn't joking. Heh!