Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

There has been many references, from many reputable cosmologists, over many threads, highlighting the evidence and data we have that point to both DM and DE existing in one form or another.
I'm really not sure how you could have missed those references, other then ignoring them because they dont happen to fit into your slightly askew model?
On both of those entities, consensus is obvious.
Your reference to a cosmological dark age also appears to be rather wierid to say the least, considering the many state of the art equipment we have helping astronomers/cosmologists and physicists in general.
Perhaps it is just a case of the more we find out, the more there seems to be to still need to know.

The Universe is a weird and wonderful place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dark matter has been empirically shown to exist as real natural phenomena regardless your ignorant rant. What's unknown is the particle physics associated with dark matter. Continuing with the bullshit history isn't going to buy you any credibility even in a public science forum. Just because you're in love with ignorance doesn't mean everybody is.
My guess your crank theory requires dark matter not to exist as real natural phenomena. Hence the love of ignorance.
Wow 669 citations and you didn't read any of them.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I liked your earlier post. "Chandrasekar limit" is indeed a solid bit of astrophysics related to neutron stars. More reading helps to a point, if you are selective about it. I freely admit to near total ignorance on the subject of cosmology.

Either you can learn more and more about less and less until you know everything about virtually nothing, or else you can come to the understanding that you know so little about something as great as the universe as to know virtually nothing about everything. More's the pity, you can't have it both ways.

It might have actually been someone like this poster who taught me that idea on usenet a very time long ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Chandrasekha limit refers to White Dwarfs and maximum stable masses to be more precise.

 

Why would you say such an absurd thing? That is complete bullshit. Do you really think that cosmology courses at different colleges conflict with others school or do they teach the consensus?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So are you saying that because of the error in the measurement of light that the distance that we say light travels in 1 year is +/- 21.4 miles. So that for 10 ly years the error is +/- 213.9 miles.

Is that correct, that is what you are saying?

Further, are you saying that at a distance of 10 ly a perpendicular distance of 213.9 miles yields a subtended angle of 3 degrees?

Is that correct, is that what you are saying?

If not what the heck are you saying

 

What's a few of a few? One? A third? How about establishing the basic facts in controversy and posting some information to support a position.

I am amused by this statement as well.

So there are no textbooks which teach the current state of the science? There are no databases? Seek and ye shall find.

I think everyone who majored in science is surprised by what you said.

wait a minute--aren't you the electrical engineer? How did you ever make it past your freshman exams?

 

"Origin" states that all the questions are answered, but I still maintain that they are not, I will take up this in next post in detail.

1.

Chandra Limit refers to Electron Collapsing into nucleus beyond certain radius. It does not matter what we call the matter beyond this, Neutron Star or White Dwarf, thats accepted nomenclature. The question was how a mass of 10^53 Kgs could remain in such a small volume?


It can be inferred from Paddoboy's multiple posts that: We really do not know what was the matter at that time. What it suggests is that there are multiple unanswered questions even after t>10^-43 onwards also. (Why this t ? because someone responded that we have certain issues upto t = 10^-43 sec, but after that Physics took over nicely.)

BruceP writes off that Chandra Limit is applicable only for collapsing not for expansion without bothering about the significance of the question. This kind of disillusion can come after answering so many silly questions at various forums. He should have gone beyond basic Wiki to answer the fact for how long we remained below this limit that is from t = 0 to t = [ When space radius > Chandra Limit for 10^53 Kgs].

I will go along with Paddoboy, that we do not know much about the matter at the start. But then for how long after t = 0 ??


2.


Regarding unification, my question was very simple that Unification efforts are in the direction of linking Gravity also with other forces. Dark matter can produce gravity but it does not interact with light. So prima-facie if Dark matter is present the way we think, then Unification efforts in present form are futile or vice versa.

Answers like 'No' or defining Gravity as space time distortion, does not answer this question. Flat question : Can DM and Unification co exist the way they are thought of as on date ?? If yes, then how ?

 

And yet you feel qualified to pontificate on something you just admitted total ignorance to?

 

"The dark ages of cosmology". For cosmological science it's the age of enlightenment. These cosmological experiments will be legendary in the annals of "the literature'. Those that denigrate the literature are booger eating morons in my estimation.

 

Obviously, by the way you have misinterpreted me, it's as clear as day, that you have an agenda to push.
I'm sure I said, [but if you want to take the time to show me, be my guest] The closer we are to the quantum/Planck era, the less certain we are.
Once again, we are near certain of the BB and evolution of space and time...once again, we are just as certain of SR and GR...We are as good as certain of Abiogenesis and Evolution.
Other aspects and details are not as certain.
Now you can twist and misconstrue my statement, to align with whatever agenda you push, as much as you like, but when we get down to the nitty gritty, whatever you propose must match observations better then the incumbent models.
All these "less then certain" aspects, that you seem to have a problem with, are all generally accepted in mainstream cosmology.
Your questions seem to focus on details that are not a problem, and if they were a problem, they are being looked at by mainstream science, and any modifications, tinkerings etc, will almost certainly come from mainstream, for the many reasons I have stated many times, and which you so insidiously ignore.

 

I think any person vaguely interested in astronomy/cosmology etc, and keeps up with the latest findings data, probes and research results, would also be surprised by what he said.

 

You may also go down in history as the first person in the world to ever post "booger-eating" in such close proximity to "cosmological".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now watch it pop up as the name of a band, only to upstage my own garage band The Vomit Snowcone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah as I read that remark I couldn't get Hubble telescope out of my mind as the single most influential advancement toward discovery, particularly as it reaches the public (anyone whoever bothers to peruse the images). The web has extended this such that any curious mind can explore the sky effortlessly. And the databases--the catalogues. And then the mass of papers. And then there are all kinds of open lecture materials. So even a pedestrian like dan should feel a vibe--that students today have far greater assets to work with, that this era will be remembered as a kind of renaissance, not only in cosmology, but in all the sciences.

Of course never in history has ignorance been glorified the way the present-day illiterati do. So I would tend to agree that our era will be remembered as a dark period, too, but only for that reason.

And we could list all the experiments you mention, the various probes, telescopes and new observatories and of course the discoveries made the same way Hubble made his -- by comparative analysis of catalogued objects -- and it looks like the illiterati are the only black clouds threatening to usher in the Dark Ages.

Yeah this will be remembered as the age when attacking science was the last resort of a dying breed of people who never bothered to study it, and found themselves increasingly hamstrung, if not isolated, in a world that increasingly thrives on science and technology.

Wait, let me put my shades on:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. The glow from the Hubble images on my screen is about to knock me over.

 

Because I can tell a stack of turtles when I see it. Heaping more speculation on top of speculation does not make the stack even a tiny bit more stable, just like the BS you just mentioned.

I still remember after being taught about Newton's laws for most of the year in high school physics, how disappointed I was in the way I was taught when I learned I was still just beginning to learn how things ACTUALLY worked. I remember thinking: "why couldn't they just teach us the RIGHT theory in the first place?"

The real answer is, they didn't know it. They didn't know it then. They still don't know it. They'll never know it, at this rate, and sorry, but I no longer really care.

 

Yes. Before they collapse into NEUTRON STARS. It's a beautiful theory. One of the best. It still doesn't even scratch the surface of what's out there, or what is left to calculate, if you insist on exploring the universe that way. I suppose it's all a finite mind like ours can manage, but one should never confuse such theories with reality, which is usually much stranger.

 

Again, they refer to WD stars and the maximum stable mass.
Neutron stars also have a maximum stable mass, beyond which they turn into BH's [or maybe Quark stars]
But it isn't called the Chandrasekar limit.

Successful scientific theories are formulated and stand on what we observe, the results of experiments, and there predicitive powers.
If that happens to align with this reality you are concerned with, [as SR and GR have] all well and good.

 

This sub forum is most suitable for understanding, what is our Mainstream Cosmology with its + and -. There are certain difficult questions which are known with no clear answer and unfortunately we are not in a position to answer for them as on date, but in absence of any other scientifically successful alternative theory, we must live with these questions. So whenever someone comes up with new ideas and new theories in an attempt to answer these questions; He/She gets bombarded, ridiculed and even their ideas get termed as BS. Even if someone persists with a question S/he is termed as member with an agenda. Which is certainly not a mature way of handling, but I do not see how else it can be handled. Because the fact is "Mainstream theory with its + and -" is what we have, this is accepted by almost all. The member who asks difficult questions takes some time to adjust with these open questions or gets disillusioned.

There are few members who attempt to answer these questions in a routine manner, these members may be aware of all the + and - of the present theory, but discipline requires them to follow the same, but ultimately the postings come down to crap only. Why ? Because as on date respectable scientists and their followers have accepted the theories with some open handles. Open handles are acknowledged and known, so repeat hammering on these open handles or any question which leads to inadequacy of present day theory, will certainly cause a feeling of irritation to these followers.

This is precisely what is happening in this forum. Paddoboy / Origin / Aquoues Id / Brucep / etc are doing exactly the same thing, answering, defending and finally terming the insistence of querist either as agenda or BS. But then no constructive idea is also coming forward from these guys, this is quite disturbing, they appear to be more than Wiki knowledgeable, they also must come forward and put their own views frankly. Simply doing the job of pasting some news or some writings or answering questions is not doing justice to their knowledge.





All questions from my side stand closed. Thanks all the guys who attempted to put some light in my head. These questions may appear in future only if some value addition is seen by me or if I fail to fit them into existing theories.

 

Typical anti-science ranting.

WTF? So you no longer think that F=ma?

No, the real answer is you don't what the hell YOU are talking about. We do not have all the answers to every question and you take that to mean that everything is specualtion? What an illogical and frankly stupid conclusion.

 

No that is not what happens. When someone comes up with an alternative theory it is peer reviewed and if it stands up to scrutiny it is incorporatied into science.
If there is someone in a forum who does not even understand the current theories but still tries to put forth an alternative theory and will not listen to constructive criticism then you can expect that person to get bombarded and ridiculed.

Huh?

Sorry to have to break it to you but we cannot give you a science education in a forum. You are only going to get short answers on a forum. As I have said before, take some courses and learn some science. Whining gets you nowhere.

 

Agreed.

There are various levels of discourse in this forum. Those who are most knowledgeable seek to edify with insight. They will also at times point those less-knowledgeable in the right direction with links/directions to others who have expounded elsewhere.

This forum has people from all age groups, and a huge variety of backgrounds. Many are simply seeking answers to their questions. Others are seeking to expound on their 'views' without having taken the time/trouble to research the matter, leaving them subject to ridicule.