Study plunges standard theory of cosmology into crisis

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uob-sps050509.php ^ | May 5, 2009 | Unknown

[decimon]

No fudging dark matters.

[raygunfan]

hilarious when the whole house of cards is built on non existant, non visible, ‘dark’ matter....

and they claim we creationist believe in fairy tales...

whatabunchMAROOOOOONS....

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models.

This whole dark matter thingy gives me a giggle when I imagine the Lord and Creator of all that is...having loads of fun toying with cosmologists by changing the rules of His game with nothing but a mere thought or twitch of His finger.
"Heh heh....watch this...I'm going to decrease the mass of this whole section of the universe...watch 'em start scrambling...this'll be good."

[decimon]

Sasha Baron Cohen is God?

[mosaicwolf]

The entire so called physical universe is an illusion; a projection of the collective ego. Quit wasting all this energy trying to figure it out. Just relax and enjoy reading FR everyday while you are still living the dream.

[PreciousLiberty]

Well...there have been recent galactic observations that were explained by “exotic dark matter” affecting visible matter. No doubt there are other potential explanations, but these were considered fairly definitive evidence of dark matter.

Dark matter (of exotic or non-exotic form) most likely exists, unless the quantities we consider “constant” in current physics are in fact non-constant. That’s an issue that’s not being addressed to any great extent at the moment, since it violates a central tenet of science, that physical law remains constant over time.

[JackOfVA]

The 2002 Scientific American article on MOND, written by the father of the MOND theory, Dr. Mordehai Milgrom, can be read at
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/sad0802Milg6p.pdf

MOND modifies Newton’s f=ma law to become f=ma^2 for small values of acceleration, with f=ma still applying for larger values of acceleration.

Jack

[mrmeangenes]

This may strike some of you as odd, but I have placed the subject of dark matter on my list of Things-Not-To-Worry-About.

Incidentally, I thought it was rather kind -(if a bit enterprising)- of some to explain the Lord’s position on all this !

[PreciousLiberty]

“The entire so called physical universe is an illusion; a projection of the collective ego.”

That is certainly one possibility. It could also (in a solipsist view) be the creation of only your personal ego (mind), and the rest of us could be simply pale echos of the wonder of you.

Or not.

In the meantime, most reasonable people believe in things like continuity, reality, cause and effect, science, and history. Many of us have even experienced some of these things. I’m sure your world view will reward you as you deserve.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...hilarious when the whole house of cards is built on non existant, non visible, ‘dark’ matter..."

You can't "see" wind, but you can observe it's effects.

In fact, you cannot "see" the individual molecules of air that compose the wind, but you can observe their cumulative effects.

You cannot "see" gravity, but I would be willing to bet that you RESPECT the effects you observe.

You cannot "see" the electrons that were pushed around to post your message or this reply.

The BIG difference between SCIENCE and "creationist fairy tales" is that Scientists will go out and measure observable effects and attempt to explain them. When a "scientific" explanation fits the observed data, it is considered the "best" explanation to date. When NEW information is collected (by making observations, conducting experiments, you know, that whole "research" thing) that DOES NOT FIT the current model, scientists re-evaluate the models, looking for weaknesses and the means to IMPROVE understanding. This is not a fault in science, this IS SCIENCE.

This is how ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE expands and improves. If you just argue about what a couple of thousand year old text has to say, whether it is the Bible, or the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh, you're going to be stuck with 2000 year old world views.

[PreciousLiberty]

“This may strike some of you as odd, but I have placed the subject of dark matter on my list of Things-Not-To-Worry-About.”

Actually I find it a welcome diversion from the today’s update on the Obamanation. On the other hand, dark matter was never something I “worried about” in the first place.

The Fair Tax is my most recent issue to ignore, it’s not going to happen without fundamental change (the right kind) in the government. Right now we need to hunker down and protect what’s left of the Constitution.

[decimon]

Incidentally, I thought it was rather kind -(if a bit enterprising)- of some to explain the Lord’s position on all this !

If you accept said people to be the voice of God. I am not religious but I would not insult religious people with a reducing of God to some spiteful prankster.

[RobRoy]

>>The entire so called physical universe is an illusion; a projection of the collective ego. Quit wasting all this energy trying to figure it out. Just relax and enjoy reading FR everyday while you are still living the dream.<<

When I accepted Christ into my heart, I took the red pill.

This world really is closer to the Matrix than a lot of people want to believe. What you see, feel, hear and touch - It is all mere perception. Literally.

[RobRoy]

>>That is certainly one possibility. It could also (in a solipsist view) be the creation of only your personal ego (mind), and the rest of us could be simply pale echos of the wonder of you.<<

It was a warm sunny day before my 6th grade year in the summer of 1965 in a small town in eastern Washington as I stopped my bicycle just short of my house as I pondered that very question. I remember it vividly.

[raygunfan]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

the articles first two lines basically say the same thing:

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions

---

I will stick with the truth of Christ, you can stick with man made fairy tales about dark matter that cant be seen or tested, etc...

[mrmeangenes]

Much less Someone who can be persuaded - via suitable incantation - to perform card tricks.

[Right Winged American]

I always start getting—ah—nervous when physics starts relying on an ‘invisible & undetectable’ thing to explain observations. When a theory relies on something that cannot be tested, you’re in trouble. It’s the same problem I had with the various ‘string—super-string’ theories.

Remember ‘Phlogiston’(sp?) physics?

Personally, I’m leaning toward lots more hydrogen than assumed. And maybe one of the ‘open’ universe hypothesis’.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I always start getting—ah—nervous when physics starts relying on an ‘invisible & undetectable’ thing to explain observations..."

No problem, that is healthy skeptisim. I too find that the "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" to be too much of a convenient "crutch" to lean on. My post was NOT to defend "Dark Matter" specifically, but rather the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS that is investigating it.

"...Remember ‘Phlogiston’(sp?) physics?..."

My point precisely! A scientist "proposes" an explanation, and you test it to the point where it is either pretty well accepted, or you have to junk it. ‘Phlogiston’ has been tested and has been "junked". Right now, "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are being tested. I suspect that we are on the verge of learning some things where something big is going to have to give.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I will stick with the truth of Christ, you can stick with man made fairy tales about dark matter that cant be seen or tested, etc..."

As I explained to another poster:

"My post was NOT to defend 'Dark Matter' specifically, but rather the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS that is investigating it."

How does your computer work, there? Can you "see" the electrons whizzing around to transmit your posts to Free Republic? No? Didn't think so. There are MANY things in this reality that cannot be seen by the naked eye, yet can be harnessed and understood by Man's intellect. The computer you are using is direct proof of that. You are probably sitting underneath a flourescent light that is emitting light due to the excitation of "unseen" atoms. Your kitchen no doubt has a 'fridge with a compressor turned by an electric motor spun by "invisible" magnetic fields. Your last bout with a cold was caused by a virus too small to be seen attacking your body's individual cells, which are also too small to be seen. Your health was restored by the work of antibodies too small to be seen.

When testing for something that cannot be seen with the naked eye or other instrument, you attack the problem by looking for the EFFECTS it would cause on things you CAN see and measure. This is actual science. Theories get updated, revised, and if necessary, REJECTED, based upon evidence collected. Those ideas which yeild productive results are retained. Those that cannot be supported by the evidence are cast aside. It is the FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM for LEARNING NEW THINGS.

The Bible will not tell you how to build a motor, or a microscope, or a telescope, or create a vaccine, or where to drill for oil, or how Nuclear Fusion works. That is not a deficiency, as the Bible is not a science or engineering text. It is a deficiency to try to use it like one.

[OneWingedShark]

>If you just argue about what a couple of thousand year old text has to say, whether it is the Bible, or the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh, you’re going to be stuck with 2000 year old world views.

That is untrue. Arguing, in the classical-logic sense is a good way to gain understanding, and to convey that actual knowledge. As some have said “words mean things”, but as experience shows there are fewer who truly understand this; when someone who does corrects someone who does not it is usually received as a personal attack or, very often, as being pedantic/legalistic