Total Members Voted: 16
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is one of those subjects where, as a layman, I am finding it difficult to accept what science is claiming.Statement: The universe appears to be expanding at an ever faster accelerated rate.Statement: This is not the results science had predicted. Statement: Something must be causing the universe to expand faster and faster.Statement: There is nothing we can identify that is causing this faster expansion rate.Conclusion: It must be something we humans cannot detect. We will call it Dark Energy.Query. Why do we suspect this Dark Energy exists?Statement: Because without it, the universe would not be expanding at an ever accelerating rate.Now I squeaked by logic in college by the skin of my teeth, and with the kindness of a decent teacher. So I am sure my logic flow is full of holes. But actually there are not. There appear to be holes, but in truth, they just cannot be detected. We call this Dark Logic.Okay the last paragraph was my attempt at a joke. But I'm serious about the rest. And that appears to be circular logic to me. Thus my difficulty with this theory.
No. I see no real evidence.
Thank you all for your responses. Starting from the bottom up.I didn't discuss Dark Matter because, as I understand it, it is not the predominant force at work in the Universe.
I believe that Dark Matter exits. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy. It would be arrogant of us to assume that something has to be observable for us (as in "seeing" matter through visible photons) to believe that it exists but in fact the evidence comes from gravitational interaction with galactic matter.Quote from: MikeS on 10/04/2012 08:40:41No. I see no real evidence.What do you mean by "see" no real evidence? In what sense do you "see" real evidence for other matter such as electrons, protons and neutrons?
I was using 'see' as meaning 'aware of'.I am aware of no real evidence for the existence of dark matter as explained in my last post above.
Pete,Iv'e read some and I'm not convinced over the arguments for dark matter. Obviously some matter will be dark as it does not emit light but is still ordinary matter.As I mentioned above I think we are just misinterpreting the evidence.
Quote from: MikeS on 01/05/2012 11:32:26Pete,Iv'e read some and I'm not convinced over the arguments for dark matter. Obviously some matter will be dark as it does not emit light but is still ordinary matter.As I mentioned above I think we are just misinterpreting the evidence.Ahh! I see now. So what you really mean here is not that you see no real evidence but that that evidence you do see doesn't convince you. It seems to me that being misled by the evidence is something different altogether though. What makes you think that we are misinterpretating the evidence?Peteps - I'm beginning to get the impression that its more important, not simply to be convinced by something but to be well versed in the reasoning of what led you to form an opinion of what we read.
Isn't it what we read or learn that convinces us of the validity of an argument? Personally I have to know what led up to something being accepted as true. If I don't understand or don't accept something as true then I am likely to question it.
Quote from: Gordian Knot on 30/04/2012 15:40:45Thank you all for your responses. Starting from the bottom up.I didn't discuss Dark Matter because, as I understand it, it is not the predominant force at work in the Universe.My personal opinion - Please don't take this personally, okay? Even so it is Dark Matter which is the topic in this thread, not the most predominant force. If you thought it was more important then you should have added what you did as a side line and not the topic of the post/thread.
Dark matter is about 83pct of the MATTER in the universe. Dark energy is about 72pct of the total MASS/ENERGY of the universe. Your top unlined phrase is how I understand it.No scientist would use the terms interchangeable - they are completely different concepts; really only linked by their names.
That is, Does one believe that something that cannot in any way be perceived is real?"
Quote from: Gordian KnotThat is, Does one believe that something that cannot in any way be perceived is real?" But Dark Matter is percieved. It interacts gravitationaly with all matter which has passive gravitational mass.
Quote from: Pmb on 02/05/2012 02:07:14Quote from: Gordian KnotThat is, Does one believe that something that cannot in any way be perceived is real?" But Dark Matter is percieved. It interacts gravitationaly with all matter which has passive gravitational mass. If it exists it may act gravitationally with all matter that has passive gravitational mass. It may not exist. It was formulated to explain an anomaly. It is not the only explanation and it is certainly not the simplest.
Anti-photon, W.E. Lamb, Appl. Phys, B 60, 77-84 Abstract. It should be apparent from the title of this article that the author does not like the use of the term "photon", which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists. I admit that the word is short and convenient. Its use is also habit forming. Similarly, one might find it convenient to speak of the "aether" or "vacuum" to stand for empty space, even if no such thing existed. There are very good substitutes for "photon", (e.g. "radiation" or "light") and for "photonics" (e.g. "optics" or "quantum optics"). Similar objections are possible to use of the word "phonon", which dates from 1932. Objects like electrons, neutrinos of finite rest mass, or helium atoms can, under suitable conditions, be considered to be particles, since their theories then have a viable non-relativistic and non-quantum limits. This paper outlines the main features of the quantum theory of radiation and indicates how they can be used to treat problems in quantum optics.
I think dark energy is here to stay, at least for a while.
Hmm, is the question directed to me Pete? Or to Mike? Both maybe
I think dark energy is here to stay, at least for a while. You could assume that if we all (mass) were shrinking at the same rate that space accelerate/expands, then that might be an sufficient explanation for what we see. As for assuming different 'time rates' as 'a contraction in the TIME dimension of space-time.' I will presume that this is a expansion' of your own ideas, and to be perfectly honest I'm not even sure how to interpret it? There is a lot of accelerating expansion going on out there as it seems.
This one might be more useful to you Mike? it lists the ways ways astronomers, and others, use for deducing/finding a 'dark energy'. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINAll that seems to confirm is the measured accuracy of the red-shift.My concern is that all of the above evidence relies upon the red-shift. The red-shift is the very thing that is open to debate. It's a circular argument. The red shift can have two explanations, time contraction or space expansion. As they look the same both would account for the above five points.
Quote from: yor_on on 02/05/2012 15:38:41I think dark energy is here to stay, at least for a while. I think that there is one scenario that has been hypothesized by physicists (E.g. touched on in Gravition and Spacetime 2nd Ed., Ohanian& Ruffini) but has not yet been touched on in this thread. Now my question is Are you certain that you don't believe in the existance of dark matter but that you're taking it out of context?Consider one of the possible explanations that has been consistent for Dark Matter is black holes. Ask your self whether you believe in the existance in black holes and if so would you consider their existance to be a candidate for dark matter?Now that you've considered this as a plausible explanation would you now consider the existance of Dark Matter to strong?
I guess black holes could be considered by definition to be dark matter as we can't see them.However, that is not necessarily true.
Science operates on a consensus of opinion amongst your peers. It owes little to what is actually true but as we seldom know what is true it is probably the best that we can expect.Unfortunately for the likes of me I have no peers to form a consensus.
Quote from: MikeS on 03/05/2012 16:46:39Science operates on a consensus of opinion amongst your peers. It owes little to what is actually true but as we seldom know what is true it is probably the best that we can expect.Unfortunately for the likes of me I have no peers to form a consensus.You could always learn to become a physicist by starting off with the basics (basic physics and math) and that will give you the basics to put yourself in the position to start to lean physics (since physics forum is where you keep posting from what I see). Warning: It's a very long road but it's worth the travel.