NASA Announces Dark Matter Discovery

NASA ^ | Aug. 14, 2006 | Megan Watzke

[true_blue_texican]

I'm not certain that there is any expansion. BB was introduced to explain why there is an expansion. But BB cannot account for galactic clusters, super clusters, or even star clusters. In the BB universe, star clusters cannot have formed because it takes more years to form them than the universe has existed. Even worse for galactic clusters. Even worse for the super clusters that have been mapped. BB originally assumed a homogenous starting point. The observed universe is too 'lumpy' for observation to agree with BB. So BB was modified to have small lumps in it in the first millionths of a second after the bang (or some tiny time frame.) Now the BBers want to use the uniformity of the microwave background as evidence of BB. Did you catch the fallacy there? The universe is NOT uniform, but the uniformity of the microwave radiation is used as evidence of the BB.

First, the universe sprang from a singularity but the universe is too lumpy for that.

So they changed it to the universe sprang from "quantum quasi-singularity thingy" to account for the lumpiness but try to use the uniformity of the microwave radiation as evidence that a NON-uniform thingy grew into the universe.

Then there were all the failures in the prediction of the elements. I believe namely the ratio of hydrogen, helium, and deuterium. If I remember correctly, it was "inflation" that was invented to account for the discrepancy between observation and prediction.

As to what I think "happens to the relativistic field equations at very high matter desities?" -- The question is flawed. It asks what I think about an equation when some part of it is "high". The real question is "does relativistic field equations correctly predict what is observable in objects with extremely high densities?"

[Gorjus]

In real life, the universe is mainly held together by electrical and electromagnetic forces.

As this declaration is in conflict with the explanation accepted by those who are expert in the field, once again: What is your reason for choosing this explanation rather than the established one?

(Note: I am not saying that a 'consensus' explanation is automatically right. If you have solid reasoning, then lay it out. Advances in science come from those who reject the 'standard' explanation and find something beyond it. But the burden of proof is on those who would overturn established explanations. What's your proof?)

[Gorjus]

Dark Matter is a mathematical conjecture to "attempt" to make up for the fact that observations (which is the PRIMARY tool of science) do NOT jive with the Big Bang Theory in ANY of the predictive models of the BB.

No, actually Dark Matter is used to explain the observed paths of stars in galaxies, and in no way depends on the Big Bang or any other explanation for the origin of the universe itself. See "Astronomy," July 2006.

Dark Energy is a candidate explanation for the observations of the speed of expansion of the universe over time. It fits the observed evidence and is consistent with mathematical descriptions of the universe (i.e. General Theory of Relativity) that also fit with observed evidence and can be used to make testable predictions. Fitting with observations and tested theory is not automatically proof, but it's a place to start.

By your standards, we can indeed 'observe' black holes even though we can't see them. And the black hole itself is not only a mathematical conjecture, but a very consistent expression of mathematically observable data. (Stars in orbit around an unseen mass, whose mass and maximum radius can be observed/calculated from the orbit of the visible star, demonstrate an object with mass and radius sufficient to have an escape velocity greater than the velocity of light.) Whether there is an actual 'singularity' at the heart of the black hole is mathematical conjecture, but not the existence of bodies with escape velocity greater than the speed of light.

Extensions beyond the observed data, such as Hawking's conjecture that the universe is a web of quantum-sized universes (not his claim, actually, just a conjecture to explain what the current theory allows but does not require) are not the evidence for black holes.

And in fact, the apparent accelerating expansion of the observable objects in our universe would indicate that the universe is not a black hole. In contrast, instead of being closed where nothing can escape, most things in the universe seems to have a high enough velocity to escape, or at least to expand to a rest state without falling back toward the net center of mass.

You don't have to accept explanations that are consistent with observed data and with testable theory, but the burden of proof is on those who propose alternate explanations. What's your explanation, and what's your proof?

[tomzz]

Try this for starters...

[finnigan2]

Normal matter, dark matter, anti matter, string theory, worm holes, cold fusion. My head hurts.
Never mind. Just because theoretical physics seems to be in one huge confused cock up, just keep in mind that the Force is with you and that ultimately, the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.

[zeugma]

Actually, the problem with the answer to the question of Life, The Universe, and Everything, is that what is commonly known as the Answer, is actually a mis-translation.

It was meant to be written as "fourty-two", not "42", so the answer is actually 38. 

[finnigan2]

"It was meant to be written as "fourty-two", not "42", so the answer is actually 38"

- You're the first person I've met who is crazier than I am.

[kjam22]

Dark matter is what they came up with when math wouldn't prove their theory. Oh yeah.... it' dark matter out there.

[Lazamataz]

If this stuff (dark matter) actually was 90% of the universe as claimed, all of us would be having to vacuum it up off our carpets daily.

Look.

Dark matter.

[Lazamataz]

NASA Reports Successful Probe to Uranus.

In Futurama, scientists renamed Uranus because of that horrible joke.

The new name?

Urrectum.

[eastsider]

Urrectum

I understand it contains no solid matter, just gas. Has a ring around it, too.

[Gorjus]

I looked at it, and I'm not convinced. Even aside from any relative credibility of EE's versus astrophysicists about astrophysical phenomena, his introduction page consists primarily of an attack on others as close minded, an attack on phenomena he doesn't like as 'invisible' without addressing the observations that have led to the acceptance of those phenomena, plus a whine that the established astronomers restrict access to expensive equipment to those who meet the qualifications to use the equipment.

Fundamentally, you have a EE whose only tool is a hammer, and he sees everything as a nail (meaning, electrical in nature).

And by the way, astrophysicists spend a LOT of time studying plasma dynamics.

[Quark2005]

So BB was modified to have small lumps in it in the first millionths of a second after the bang (or some tiny time frame.) Now the BBers want to use the uniformity of the microwave background as evidence of BB. Did you catch the fallacy there? The universe is NOT uniform, but the uniformity of the microwave radiation is used as evidence of the BB.

The 'lumps' you speak of are a predicted result of inflationary Big Bang theory, which predicted specifically that the background radiation, while generally in the smooth form of a uniform blackbody spectrum, would have very small anisotropies. They were subsequently found.

Add to that that the BB properly predicts the observed ratios of hydrogen to helium in the universe (and more recently, even lithium), and there's actually pretty outstanding support for the theory.

[true_blue_texican]

the BB properly predicts the observed ratios of hydrogen to helium in the universe

Since when? Gamow predicted a certain ratio. What was observed did not jive with prediction. Also, what happened before the Big Bang?

[Quark2005]

Since when? Gamow predicted a certain ratio. What was observed did not jive with prediction.

For helium, the fit between observation and prediction was quite good, within a couple percent. Not so good for lithium, but that's a problem for stellar astrophysicists, now believed to be solved (though it's still early on this).

Also, what happened before the Big Bang?

Assuming the Big Bang theory is sound, why would we expect it to be capable of solving this problem? Isn't 'what happened before so-and-so' a problem for any theory or conception of the universe's origin or past? There are speculative answers to that question, but they are just that, speculation. We have no observable record of what happened before the BB, only what happened since.