dailygalaxy.com— A new theory that the Earth is in a "void" in space could dispel the need for theoretical dark matter to explain the unexplainable.
Jul 21, 2008View in Crawl 4
Pittance, maybe you shouldn't have stopped.When I say Universe, I mean the entire Universe, not just what we can see.When I say Observable Universe, I mean what you mean by Universe, that which we can see.Also, just because we can not see it, does not mean it isn't effecting us. The gravity from mass beyond the observable horizon would still be affecting matter that is visible to us. If we totally remove expansion from the example, the observable Universe would be about 15 billion light years.A star 14 billion lights away would have its own 15 billion light year observable Universe from which we would be on one edge. But that stars other edge would include stuff that is 29 billion lights from us. It would be feeling the effects of gravity from mass that it can see but we can not. This is assuming that the effects of gravity spread at the speed of light which is very hypothetical and unproven. It is very possible that the effects of gravity are expressed by the shape of the universe and are not impeded by any speed limit and hence we are also effected by the gravity from mass beyond the observable horizon.
infidel:Wrong. Assuming in the short time we have been studying the physical universe we actually know anything and instead of questioning the validity of a popularly held theory when there is data that says it's wrong is arrogance and stupidity. That is not confidence. Confidence is knowing you can figure it out given enough time and the proper tools. It's not ignoring what the world is showing you and sticking to your flawed theory. Instead of asking themselves "Maybe we have it wrong" they think they have it right and make s**t up to make the universe fit their pet theory. Oh, and invoking Carl Sagan does not make your flawed point valid.
Darwin is hardly like scientist 2 from Gonthim's example. Darwin overthrew a paradigm when he proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Dark energy and dark matter are merely attempts to patch up inconsistencies in the current standard model. We have never found dark energy OR dark matter (so far as I know...I'm no expert though), and as the article points out, the observational data which we currently interpret as evidence for dark energy disagrees with our theoretical predictions by 120 times! So not only do these concepts serve to sloppily explain inconsistencies with the standard model (eg, the accelerating expansion of the universe), but the observational data shows that our theoretical predictions about dark energy and dark matter are totally wrong. Positing dark energy/matter to explain cosmological phenomena is tantamount to saying, "there's *something* out there that explains this, we just have no idea what it is or what it's made of, and we've never seen anything that might be it, and furthermore, our current theoretical framework cannot accurate account for it."
dark matter/energy is one explanation for the expansion of the big bang however it is not the only explanation nor is it the only thing the big bang uses as evidence. we have evidence that the big bang occurred. whether or not dark matter is the cause for the inequal distribution does not directly effect the big bang theory as a whole, it simply refines the process within the expansion and how it interacts. it doesnt mean the big bang theory is wrong, as oilcan implied. sorry if that wasnt clear.
Theoretical physics is one of the most fascinating fields out there. All of these theories to do with Dark Mattter/Energy or parallel universes or cyclical universes are all amazing and fascinating. One step closer to figuring out where we are on the map!
staffaJul 22, 2008
Pittance, maybe you shouldn't have stopped.When I say Universe, I mean the entire Universe, not just what we can see.When I say Observable Universe, I mean what you mean by Universe, that which we can see.Also, just because we can not see it, does not mean it isn't effecting us. The gravity from mass beyond the observable horizon would still be affecting matter that is visible to us. If we totally remove expansion from the example, the observable Universe would be about 15 billion light years.A star 14 billion lights away would have its own 15 billion light year observable Universe from which we would be on one edge. But that stars other edge would include stuff that is 29 billion lights from us. It would be feeling the effects of gravity from mass that it can see but we can not. This is assuming that the effects of gravity spread at the speed of light which is very hypothetical and unproven. It is very possible that the effects of gravity are expressed by the shape of the universe and are not impeded by any speed limit and hence we are also effected by the gravity from mass beyond the observable horizon.
norman619Jul 22, 2008
infidel:Wrong. Assuming in the short time we have been studying the physical universe we actually know anything and instead of questioning the validity of a popularly held theory when there is data that says it's wrong is arrogance and stupidity. That is not confidence. Confidence is knowing you can figure it out given enough time and the proper tools. It's not ignoring what the world is showing you and sticking to your flawed theory. Instead of asking themselves "Maybe we have it wrong" they think they have it right and make s**t up to make the universe fit their pet theory. Oh, and invoking Carl Sagan does not make your flawed point valid.
feignnuJul 22, 2008
Darwin is hardly like scientist 2 from Gonthim's example. Darwin overthrew a paradigm when he proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Dark energy and dark matter are merely attempts to patch up inconsistencies in the current standard model. We have never found dark energy OR dark matter (so far as I know...I'm no expert though), and as the article points out, the observational data which we currently interpret as evidence for dark energy disagrees with our theoretical predictions by 120 times! So not only do these concepts serve to sloppily explain inconsistencies with the standard model (eg, the accelerating expansion of the universe), but the observational data shows that our theoretical predictions about dark energy and dark matter are totally wrong. Positing dark energy/matter to explain cosmological phenomena is tantamount to saying, "there's *something* out there that explains this, we just have no idea what it is or what it's made of, and we've never seen anything that might be it, and furthermore, our current theoretical framework cannot accurate account for it."
wunkstaJul 22, 2008
dark matter/energy is one explanation for the expansion of the big bang however it is not the only explanation nor is it the only thing the big bang uses as evidence. we have evidence that the big bang occurred. whether or not dark matter is the cause for the inequal distribution does not directly effect the big bang theory as a whole, it simply refines the process within the expansion and how it interacts. it doesnt mean the big bang theory is wrong, as oilcan implied. sorry if that wasnt clear.
pwdrskierJul 24, 2008
Theoretical physics is one of the most fascinating fields out there. All of these theories to do with Dark Mattter/Energy or parallel universes or cyclical universes are all amazing and fascinating. One step closer to figuring out where we are on the map!
starmanjonesJul 25, 2008
i thought it was funny. carry on.
samabrolinSep 26, 2008
Here's a sci-fi book that offers an alternate concept of what Dark Matter really is: <a class="user" href="http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-S-W-Ahmed/dp/0981526306/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222469195&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-S-W-Ahmed/dp/098 ...</a>