Starship Asterisk*

Darn, this is interesting.

G'day Apodman

Did you see the post that was deleted?

I think it was French

Can we get back to the topic of the thread?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 110209.php

Precise picture of early Universe supports 'dark matter' theory
. . .
Their measurements of the cosmic microwave background - a faintly glowing relic of the hot, dense, young universe - provide further support for the standard cosmological model of the universe. The findings confirm the model's prediction that dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of everything in existence, while ordinary matter makes up just 5%.
. . .
The light from the early universe was initially unpolarized but became polarized when it struck moving matter in the very early universe. By creating maps of this polarization, the QUaD team was able to investigate not just where the matter existed, but also how it was moving. The results very closely match the temperature and polarization predicted by the existence of dark matter and dark energy in the standard cosmological model.
. . .
Professor Gear said: "Studying the CMB radiation has given us extremely precise pictures of the Universe at just 400,000 years old. When we first started working on this project the polarization of the CMB hadn't even been detected and we thought we might be able to find something wrong with the theory. The fact that these superb data fit the theory so beautifully is in many ways even more amazing. This reinforces the view that researchers are on the right track and need to learn more about the strange nature of dark energy and dark matter if we are to fully understand the workings of the universe."

Who is Thomas B Andrews?
He lists no academic credentials or affiliations.
Years ago I studied all that math but it's long forgotten so I cannot argue the pros and cons of this paper - I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

When a person runs out of being able to debate the finer points, they have to decide who to believe. What I do know is that eons ago when the static universe was still regarded as a viable option the folks who favoured it put up a good fight for it. They didn't lose to some sort of conspiracy. They lost out because the data favoured the expanding universe model.

One viXra paper with no other publication data by an author with no academic credentials or affiliations does not begin to convince me.

It's not that I'm in love with expanding universes, dark energy and all the rest. Frankly, I won't be surprised if some new theory comes along and shakes the tree and contradicts much of what the mainstream now takes as decided. It's just that I don't think this paper is what is going to do it.

G'day canuck100

You maybe right.

BUt! you can also research beyond this on ADS and arXiv and other search engines.

You can pretend what ever you want.

Being comfortable with what you know entraps a person from learning beyond.

Deep research is of no benefit if you only tunnel into the fringe.

Researching opinions is a level removed from researching science.

I don't claim to know that BBT is valid and if my lack of understanding of advanced mathematics means I am researching opinions, so be it. At least I will be honest and acknowledge that this is the case.

I will freely admit that the complexity involved in making all these red shift observations has always struck me as having room for error and/or for alternate explanations.

I believe something will come along that replaces, not just modifies, BBT/lambdaCDM. In the meantime, it is based on some very successful theories and is the best we have. But I do think it's important to remember that it is just a theory, it is not unassailable fact.

My bets are that dark energy will turn out to be a property of space, a vacuum energy, a cosmological constant. I think that the explanation for dark energy lies as much with the nuclear physicists as with the cosmologists. I hear that string theory is groaning under the weight of many ad hoc additions so I don't think it will win the prize. I like the ideas of that surfer dude/mathematician Garrett Lisi -- but that strays off topic.

G'day from the land of ozzz

If what ever theory is proposed and whatever changes occur. I hope that people understand the science and the evidence given.

Some people treat some models as religion and a way of life.

The understanding of the Big picture and the quantum mechanics that supports it is omnipotent.

Hyperthetical Dark matter and dark energy as required by the expansion model (BBT) are not required to explain the observations.

The dark matter/energy that is hidden from us found in compact objects throughout the universe can be explained by researching their properties.

An interesting paper wrtten by Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz 14 Sep 2009.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2581
Cosmology and Astrophysics without Dark Energy and Dark Matter

harry wrote:The dark matter/energy that is hidden from us found in compact objects throughout the universe can be explained by researching their properties.

An interesting paper wrtten by Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz 14 Sep 2009.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2581
Cosmology and Astrophysics without Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Your statement is in complete disagreement with the paper you cite right after the statement. Did you read the paper and understand it? The trouble with only reading an abstract is that all you get is the "happily ever after" without the fairy tale.

Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz wrote:We obtain these results by examining the interplay between the local gravitational energy density, around a galaxy, and the CMB energy density. This interplay causes the inhomogeneous and anisotropic space expansion around a galaxy.

Does this model not create an unexplained discontinuous geometry where local space meets the universe at large? Harry, please explain.

harry wrote:The dark matter/energy that is hidden from us found in compact objects throughout the universe can be explained by researching their properties.

Both of these are currently explained based on observations of their properties.

Your continued usage of "dark matter/energy" reveals your deep and total ignorance about these matters. You have no business even using either term, let alone trying to discuss them rationally.

G'day Chris

You make statements that do not hold water.

You talk about Dark Matter and dark energy that no one has ever seen or proven to exists.

I have approached the issues using scientific papers and yet your opinion by you seems off this planet.

apodman wrote:

harry wrote:The dark matter/energy that is hidden from us found in compact objects throughout the universe can be explained by researching their properties.

An interesting paper wrtten by Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz 14 Sep 2009.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2581
Cosmology and Astrophysics without Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Your statement is in complete disagreement with the paper you cite right after the statement. Did you read the paper and understand it? The trouble with only reading an abstract is that all you get is the "happily ever after" without the fairy tale.

Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz wrote:We obtain these results by examining the interplay between the local gravitational energy density, around a galaxy, and the CMB energy density. This interplay causes the inhomogeneous and anisotropic space expansion around a galaxy.

Does this model not create an unexplained discontinuous geometry where local space meets the universe at large? Harry, please explain.

HARRY, STOP INSULTING CHRIS AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

harry wrote:You talk about Dark Matter and dark energy that no one has ever seen or proven to exists.

Both have been seen. And nothing has been proven to exist.

It comes down to something very simple: the current explanations for dark matter and dark energy are the best we have. No alternate theory of either one is as well supported by observation, or fits in as well with other existing theory. That's why most scientists accept that there's a good chance that the explanations are on the right track.

In my view, you lack sufficient knowledge on the subject to have any basis to accept anything other than the consensus viewpoint. Of course, the evidence here on this forum is that you'll reject almost any idea simply because it is the consensus viewpoint, which isn't a very rational approach to understanding nature.

G'day Chris

Please make your statements to science and keep the personal opinons and I will do the same.

You have no idea of what I have read and still reading.

My thoughts on the subject will be back in 2 weeks or so. Busy doing a project.

Hello Harry,

I've never missed reading any of your posts for 2+yrs now along with everyone elses inspite of the fact that I may go a time without posting something myself.

harry wrote:Hyperthetical {sic} Dark matter and dark energy as required by the expansion model (BBT) are not required to explain the observations.

However, on this point I have to disagree. Other concepts may give them a different name but the dynamic of each would be similarly described. In the BBT they are called Dark Matter and Dark Energy. In other theories the properties these forces exhibit will just be called something else but will nonethless be present for the model. whatever it is, to work.

G'day Astrolabe

Smile
Its good to disagree with science backing and I'm happy that you do.

But! when some one disagrees and insults you without science or what ever then thats another bag of fish.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy have a different meaning in the BBT compared to the Dark matter and Dark energy that is looked at in Quantum loop Cosmlogy and other models.

I wish I had more time, this project that I'm doing is taking my thoughts away from this topic. So fogive my simple response.

I would ask you to read up on Quantum Loop Cosmology it shows alot of promise.

Also look at the ways Redshift can be formed and the intinsic properties of Supernovas.

oops carried on a bit

thread title wrote:Do we know what Dark Matter/Energy is?

m/E = m / (m · c²) = 1 / c² = 1.11265006 × 10-17 (s * s) / (m * m)

it is nice that we have simple answers to some questions,

BUT

the Universe has a lot of secrets to be unveiled.

I think we will see them radically changing our understanding in next few days. And I think the key to that is deeper understanding of jets. This paper seem to have only scratched the surface:

Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow Æ Jozsef Gal wrote:ABSTRACT

Chinstrap and Ade´lie penguins generate con-siderable pressures to propel their faeces away from theedge of the nest. The pressures involved can beapproximated if the following parameters are known: (1)distance the faecal material travels before it hits theground, (2) density and viscosity of the material, and (3)shape, aperture, and height above the ground of theorificium venti. With all of these parameters measured,we calculated that fully grown penguins generate pres-sures of around 10 kPa (77 mm Hg) to expel waterymaterial and 60 kPa (450 mm Hg) to expel material ofhigher viscosity similar to that of olive oil. The forcesinvolved, lying well above those known for humans, arehigh, but do not lead to an energetically wasteful tur-bulent flow. Whether a bird chooses the direction intowhich it decides to expel its faeces, and what role thewind plays in this, remain unknown.

Smile and live another day.

makc wrote:I think we will see them radically changing our understanding in next few days. And I think the key to that is deeper understanding of jets. This paper seem to have only scratched the surface:

Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow Æ Jozsef Gal wrote:ABSTRACT

Chinstrap and Ade´lie penguins generate con-siderable pressures to propel their faeces away from theedge of the nest. The pressures involved can beapproximated if the following parameters are known: (1)distance the faecal material travels before it hits theground, (2) density and viscosity of the material, and (3)shape, aperture, and height above the ground of theorificium venti. With all of these parameters measured,we calculated that fully grown penguins generate pres-sures of around 10 kPa (77 mm Hg) to expel waterymaterial and 60 kPa (450 mm Hg) to expel material ofhigher viscosity similar to that of olive oil. The forcesinvolved, lying well above those known for humans, arehigh, but do not lead to an energetically wasteful tur-bulent flow. Whether a bird chooses the direction intowhich it decides to expel its faeces, and what role thewind plays in this, remain unknown.

Smile and live another day.

Easily more informative and on-topic than anything harry ever posted.



---

But this one (height & angle of chute, etc.) might be more ornithologically correct.

G'day Apodman

Really nice

Does more damage to this form.

For a minute I thought you had more dollars then cents in your mind.

I respect the nerve of anyone who would intentionally place their own name directly in the line of fire of the theorificium venti down under the above illustration. Watch out for energetically wasteful turbulent flow.

G'day apodamn

You are talking about cold dark matter?

As I understand it, I'm talking about cold, wet, jet-propelled dark matter made mostly of fish.

Hello apodman,

I don't agree. There are a lot of things I've learned on this Forum that are NOT intuitive but I feel strongly feel that thin is not one of them. Specifically speaking I take issue with your hypothesis that "cold" is part of this equation. I think you could be correct if you presented a time line to include a post-expulsion chronology coupled with a temperature gradient. Until you do other ideas will, of necessity, have to prevail.

Initially warm, then, I guess. But cold soon afterward. If it freezes before hitting the ground, it cracks with a resounding "planck!" - hence the concept of planck time.

Hello apodman,

Perfect, accepted. The word Plank did the trick. All else then will be considered 'crackpot".