Skip to comments.
Space science contains big void - Astronomers admit they don't understand dark energy and matter
Mercury News ^
| 6/30/03
| Robert S. Boyd - Knight Ridder
Posted on 06/30/2003 7:04:52 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:31:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON - In ``Star Wars,'' Darth Vader rules the ``dark side'' of a fantasy universe. In real life, astronomers are exploring the ``dark side'' of our own universe. They find it a mystifying place.
According to a batch of new reports published in a special ``Welcome to the Dark Side'' issue of the journal Science, most of the cosmos cannot be seen, even with the most powerful telescopes. All but a tiny fraction of creation consists of two exotic, invisible ingredients called ``dark energy'' and ``dark matter.''
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: astronomers; crevolist; darkenergy; darkmatter; dontunderstand; spacescience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
To: NormsRevenge
"In other words, dark matter acts as a brake on cosmic expansion, dark energy as an accelerator."So who is pushing the pedals? No matter what I read on this subject I always arrive at the conclusion that God is real.
21
posted on
06/30/2003 7:33:27 PM PDT
by
yooper
To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
22
posted on
06/30/2003 7:35:43 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices.)
To: RS
"I
have to have
some theory,"
![](http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:tb-8uGOAdNsC:www.mt.net/~watcher/homersmart.gif)
"I'm a scientist!"
23
posted on
06/30/2003 7:37:22 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is slavery.)
To: Physicist
It's an opportunity to work on something new and interesting, an opportunity to learn, and for some, an opportunity to make names for themselves. I really LIKE that attitude! I think that real scientists think like that! Not to turn this into an anti-Evolution thread, but my peeve with them is that everytime some new evidence comes out that refutes any part of Evolutionary Theory, some scientists immediately announce:
"We know 3 things:
God does not exist.
Evolutionary Theory is definitely correct.
We can absorb this new evidence without fundamentally re-thinking anything."
To: yooper
So who is pushing the pedals? No matter what I read on this subject I always arrive at the conclusion that God is real.
Oh, that doesn't get you too far. Who gave God feet?
25
posted on
06/30/2003 7:37:38 PM PDT
by
BikerNYC
To: Man_of_Reason
Sounds like they're getting back to the ether theories. Do some checking on zero point energy .... ether is definately making a comeback.
26
posted on
06/30/2003 7:41:55 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: Rudder
Finally, an article about nothing!Did George and Jerry write it?
27
posted on
06/30/2003 7:41:59 PM PDT
by
Lawgvr1955
(Cosmo is never in a happy home.)
To: Physicist
Are axions a possibility to cover much of it?
28
posted on
06/30/2003 7:42:45 PM PDT
by
spunkets
To: ClearCase_guy
...
everytime some new evidence comes out that refutes any part of Evolutionary Theory, ... God does not exist. Please give a specific example of this.
Something that 'refutes' evolutionary theory, and s scientist making a theological deduction from it.
Your credibility is on the line.
29
posted on
06/30/2003 7:45:55 PM PDT
by
Virginia-American
(Of course solipsim is the only true philosophy, but that's just one man's opinion.)
To: nuconvert
Considering the fact that we didn't even know about dark energy ten years ago, I think that's it's rather unrealistic to expect that we fully understand it today.
30
posted on
06/30/2003 7:47:58 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: NormsRevenge
I dunno what to think about this. Dark matter has been well studied and understood as far as I know, but the study of dark energy is fairly new.
This is something that's going to be interesting to watch as knowledge develops, because it's effect on what we know of the physics of the universe is going to change some of the values that science has held that are used in calculating things such as the very age of the earth and the universe.
A couple weeks ago, I saw an article about a "study" that was posted here where the combined effects of a theorized quantity of dark matter and dark energy were factored in, and it seemed to demonstrate that the speed of light is slowing at a very high rate (in astronomical terms), and the light speed figure was extrapolated to arrive at the initial speed, then the universe's expansion rate was recalculated from the time of the "big bang", and, assuming these light speed calculations were correct, it showed the universe to be only about 8,000 years old.
The result seemed rather convenient, since the study was done by scientists in a religious organization (who's name I don't recall). It would take someone with a lot more knowledge of this sort of thing than me to say whether that study had any credibility.
But who knows? That age would be about right to fit into the timeline of the bible, but extensive fossil records and other studies of the physical geology on earth still seem to contradict that (and those are things that scientists can see and touch, unlike theoretical properties of "dark" matter and energy).
I guess we still have a lot to learn. If science eventually proves something like that, there's a whole bunch of people that are gonna be real upset.
Dave in Eugene
31
posted on
06/30/2003 7:50:19 PM PDT
by
Clinging Bitterly
(Kate Hepburn, we will never forget you.)
To: yooper
I always arrive at the conclusion that God is real. The "God of the gaps." So named after people who use God to explain gaps in current knowledge.
Sadly for them, God keeps shrinking in that model.
32
posted on
06/30/2003 7:52:06 PM PDT
by
jlogajan
To: Dog Gone
Agreed.
However...
If they're saying what they think it is, then they must have SOME idea. (not NO idea)
To: Dave in Eugene of all places
That would put a damper on the carbon dating system. Wouldn't it?
To: nuconvert
Yeah, I think we're seeing some educated guesses. Better than nothing, but quite likely wrong.
35
posted on
06/30/2003 8:00:33 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: NormsRevenge
Hey NR:
This is spot on.
But you really don't get a feel for the irony of this unless you see Steven Hawkings "The Universe" DVD.
Here he goes on about how Christianity really doesn't have a clue, taking pot shots at Catholism, (like THAT is something new) saying that the Universe has yeilded most of her secrets up to smart modern scientists like himself, and oh BTW, there is one SMALL FLY in the ointment.
We don't know what composes 95% of the Universe.
But other than that, we have everything DOWN!
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
To: Dave in Eugene of all places; yooper
The thing is, there are some who would consider this stuff to not be science at all. Think about it. Basically, we have some radio telescopes which produce data, which are massaged fifteen ways from Sunday through various mathematical formula. Then various hypotheses are derived. 6 months or a year later, a new hypothesis du jour is generated. Its all great but all very speculative. No one gets too excited as the theories change, but really, it is similar to running computer models on data from ice cores, possible past volcanic explosions, estimates on solar cycles based on written records that go back to ancient china, and current guess on automobile, factory, and bovine emissions plus the amount of forest growth -- and coming out with another hypothesis on global warming (or cooling).
37
posted on
06/30/2003 8:01:28 PM PDT
by
dark_lord
(The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
To: Dave in Eugene of all places
It would take someone with a lot more knowledge of this sort of thing than me to say whether that study had any credibility. None whatsoever. Some people will never stop trying to cram the universe into the box of their superstitions.
As of February, the dark matter and dark energy content of the universe is measured well enough to give the age of the universe to three significant digits: 13.7 billion years.
If science eventually proves something like that, there's a whole bunch of people that are gonna be real upset.
And if science proves that Islam is correct, a whole bunch more will be even more upset. I lose no sleep over either prospect, however.
To: Virginia-American
Please give a specific example of this. Sadly, I will not be providing a specific example. I say that up front, because I don't like it when people try to weasel out of simple "yes/no" situations or requests for specific examples.
I will instead, invite you to any Creationist thread on FR. I can recall one about an ant species simultaneously evolving all around the world. There was a peer-reviewed science article that showed that a particular ant species had not "spread" but had evolved concurrently in multiple locations. This had the Evolutionists scratching their heads (but not questioning their core beliefs). Creationists on the thread suggested that perhaps God had something to do with it. You should have read the shouts of derisive laughter!
This pattern repeats on any Creationist thread on FR (and elsewhere). Some fly in the ointment which perhaps does not completely refute Evoltuionary Theory, but which poses a problem for it ... someone says maybe there is a God ... Evos start swearing and laughing at the poor dumb schmuck.
To: Physicist
The quotes are fine, but the tone of the article strikes me as wrong. It seems to give the impression that these discoveries are a problem for astronomers and physicists. [snip] That's essentially what I was getting at; from the quotes the author chose to use, one gets the impression of Cosmologists all sitting around tugging their forelocks whilst wailing "Woe is me! Woe is me! All is lost!"
The point that is lost is that we are now CLOSER to understanding reality than we were BEFORE the evidence for dark matter/energy became persuasive; notwithstanding the fact that we don't yet know the details. This is progress, while the tone of the article gives the impression that it is a greaat leap backwards for science. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson