Skip to comments.Science Still in the Dark about Dark Energy
Posted on 04/28/2009 9:16:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Science Still in the Dark about Dark Energy
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Evolutionary astronomers have a problem. The universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, but if general relativity is an accurate cosmological model, and if the universe is made up of the kinds of matter and energy that are directly detectable (like atoms and light), then its expansion should be slowing. Astronomers fixed this problem by theorizing that 75% of the energy density of the universe exists as dark energy. This non-detectable dark energy allows the man-made model to match astronomical observations.
However, scientists are aware that dark energy itself has problems: Nothing meeting the description of dark energy [matches] fundamental particles It is a substance that has not as yet been measured directly, has properties unlike anything we have ever seen . In short, we are very much in the dark about dark energy. At the urging of mainstream cosmologists, millions of government dollars are being spent trying to detect and characterize dark energy, whose supposed existence is only one of the assumptions required to make standard cosmological models work.
Another of these assumptions is...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
For crying out loud!
Imaginary bandaids characterize all the anti-God models; is that a coincidence? ;o)
Sorry but I can't drop my IQ far enough to read the rest of the article
So let me get this straight. There is a problem with General Relativity as a cosmological model, but Global Warming has long moved past the need for debate and is absolute truth. Riiiiiiiight!
What’s anti-God in this one?
In other words “dark energy” must be a liberal concept ; it can’t be seen or measured,it’s only an imaginary concept used to keep alive other theories that have failed real-world testing,and it costs millions of dollars for no observable results!
Careful. Brian Thomas has an M.S.* after his name.
Thanks for the ping!
I admit there are flaws in current physics models but the stupidity in this article could be pointed out by a third grader.
Can you help a freeper out here? What is an evolutionary astronomer, and how does the study of astronomy relate to a theory dealing with speciation?
Just call cosmology another form of religion.
Scientists are relying on modern observations of God's creation rather than ancient guesses.
Anyone who doesn’t believe the Earth to be 10,000 years old is an Evolutionary XXX. Some time back we even witnessed the birth of Evolutionary banking.
God’s always good for a modern inspiration.
Whats anti-God in this one?
Silly you. Did you not see the word evolution in the article? That’s all it takes to qualify as anti-God.
Someone's indulging himself in "word magic" to come up with that ~ I usually ignore "word magic" since, as it turns out, IT DOESN'T WORK!
The “big bang” is a falacious construct to deny the obvious, and clearly observed Terra-centric nature of the creation. It (big bang) is only supported by about 10% of astronomers.
Look, sometimes God is not as rational as you or I. He did, in fact, CREATE Interior Decorators.
That an Earth centric model of the universe has most objects in the Universe orbiting at many times the speed of light doesn’t bother you?
I can only speculate as to what the significance of the asterisk is. :)
It’s hard to imagine a more dishonest misrepresentation of an article. For anyone interested, the actual article is here:
Ever consider the sheer heinousness of having guys with 150 IQs wasting their lives studying this kind of **** and "string theory" and the like?? I mean, there are entire nations totally lacking in people with 150 IQs which could use the sorry ****ers simply for breeding stock....
That would make a cosmology good thing then, unless you're saying religion is basically a bad idea.
You know how activist blacks scream racism every time something offends their little minds and narrow world view even when no racism is present or intended? Same with the folks at ICR in their pet issue.
I never was able to make two plus two equal five, until I postulated the existence of a “dark unit” which, if applied to the original equation, makes up the difference.
Haven’t you heard? “There are actually six stages of Evolution necessary for what we see in today’s world (cosmic, chemical, stellar/planetary, organic, macro, and micro). Only one stage, Micro-evolution, has been observed...”
PS Hey OneVike, is this website you???
You did flunk general relativity, didn’t you!
‘creation physicist D. R. Humphreys wrote in 1994, if we were in a special place close to the center [this would be] exceedingly improbable on a chance basis. It therefore strongly smacks of purpose, and is thus unpalatable to most theorists today’
I laughed about that too.
You don’t know what GR actually says.
the asterisk comes with the M.S. when it’s printed at the diploma mill where it’s bestowed. that’s my theory. call it the implied disclaimer.
I of course have massive scientific problems with the Earth-centric idea. But my main philosophial problem is that insisting on it exhibits 1) a very liberal-like need to be special or 2) hubris. I’m not a fan of either.
Or perhaps you are a devotee of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism who is unwilling to look at the scientific evidence that points to nature’s God.
Thanks for the ping and heads up.
This appears to be the case. If Intelligent Design means "the idea that there is a Mind behind Reality that has created it either quickly, slowly or immanently" - then Intelligent Design is strongly supported by the 'strong' Anthopic Principle.
I'll try and do some justice to this concept in what follows.
The Strong Anthropic Principle
This concerns the observed "tuning" of the cosmological constants (strength of gravity, strength of emg force etc) that underpin the Universe.
The idea is that the tuning points to a Creator who did the tuning- because the tuning is exactly right for the existence of human life, far too improbably exact to have happened by chance.
First, we should distinguish the strong Anthropic Principle from the weak one.
The weak one is roughly along the lines of isnt it lucky we live just far enough away from the Sun to live.
And similar arguments, like lucky that humans got a chance to evolve when the Dinosaurs cacked it etc. Its weak because this argument can be countered by the humans are simply self-selecting observers who live on one lucky ball of rock argument.
The strong version of the Anthropic Principle is the observation that this Universe appears to have been designed to allow life to exist. In any form. At all. Out of all the infinitely variable boundary conditions of the Universe (the Gravitational constant, the relative strength of the Strong and Weak forces, and many others) the Universe just *happens* to have, or to embody, the exact set of parameters which make matter, space and life itself possible.
Note the emphasis on possible. We are not talking about there being a universe which happened to give rise to humans, baboons and bacteria. That would be the weak Anthropic principle.
We are talking about there being a universe where life is possible in any form whatever. If one of the Universes constants were to change by a few decimal places then the Universe would consist only of hydrogen, or only of baryons - or it would have lasted only a few millenia before crunching back on itself.
The prima-facie odds of getting even carbon-synthesis to work are extraordinarily remote, and everything else has to be just right as well
The odds are literally infinitesimal that our Universe just happened to get it right. The religious, supernatural theory that the Universe was designed - and designed for us - is strongly supported by the extraordinary unlikelihood of the Universe being able to support any kind of life.
The usual (materialistic or atheistic) counter-argument against the Strong Anthropic Principle is the theory that there are quadrillions of parallel Universes, one of which is ours. Ours is only special in that we are in it to observe its existence.
This parallel universe theory (apart from being a tired Star-Trek trope) turns out to be a non-disprovable. Any other Universe would have to be completely orthogonal to this one, with no interaction of any kind. That is simply what "another Universe" means.
If a scientist could detect another Universe, he would have - by definition - simply have detected more of The Universe.
The so-called universes of Brane theory, hyperdimensional regions of dark matter interacting weakly with our own - these are part of the Universe. If you observe such exotic regions of the Universe then you have discovered that the Universe is a complex multiply-connected object. You have not discovered 'another Universe'.
Strict materialists would therefore have to adopt the position that there exist unthinkable infinities of rigidly unknowable and undetectable Universes covering the gamut of all possible physical constants in order for us to have become self-selected observers of this one Universe - the one that happens to have the right conditions for life.
This position might be true - but by its very nature it cannot be proven (Hey! I've detected a Universe which - by definition - is totally orthogonal from this one is a statement that cannot be true).
Materialists have to move to a position not readily distinguishable from religious belief in order to contest the logical consequence of the Strong Anthropic Principle - which is that this Universe has been extremely precisely tailored to the existence of life.
Hope this is helpful/useful.
Good theory. LOL!
I had seen this on the History channel Universe series, here is a link to the Scientific American video about this topic:
Gravity is not a constant.
Settle down there Rufus. Ellie May’s got more ‘tater chips, and Wheel of Fortune’ll be on in just a minute.
Unexplained is not inexplicable.
Well, yes. I am a religious person. Cosmology and indeed quantum physics are resembling religious belief systems. It was bound to happen.
“if general relativity is an accurate cosmological model” Then there should be something slowing down expansion. You look for it and it can’t be found anywhere. Well it must be INVISIBLE then!
This sounds oddly similar to the “evidence” used to convict people of witchcraft. There is a deep problem in modern physics. They have made an error way back, and they keep cobbling on nonsense “fixes” to make the math fit the original error.
Thanks for the link.
It’s the pervasive idea that all systems as we see today,
have come from some more unorganized precursor state. Just
as life (highly ordered) formed by chance /nature/randomness
The concept is more philosophical than western “scientific”
As a prime example when some cosmologists talk about a
“beginning” to our universe they talk about random fluctations
of virtual particles coming in and out of existence, then
gathering enough “steam” for lack of a better word to coalesce
and you know the rest of the story....
But how can a particle come in and out of existence? Or is
it that the particle when it goes out of existence is
just undectable to us? Since science supposedly deals with
stuff it can detect, the idea that the virtual particle
can exist outside of our detection methods is ruled out, therefore
it is considered as not existing....But that is a philosophical
position (formed in a mind which is an illusion?), not
necessarily the real truth(shebang, spiel, game, shooting
match, 9 yards, etc). So the term evolutionary astronomer
is one who explains all existing astronomy in terms of
development from unexplained matter to chaos to order and now
back to chaos....