Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Dark Matter, Dark Energy

  1. #1
    Registered Senior Member machiaventa's Avatar
    Posts
    95

    Dark Matter, Dark Energy

    Fellows:
    Can anyone elaborate as to the exact difference between Dark matter and Dark energy. I have read explanations of each and seems that Dark matter is the scaffolding of the universe and Dark energy is what is going to tear it a part molecule by molecule. Some how I find this confusing,even yet more puzzleing than any other theory yet proposed by the world's scientist.

    Machiaventa

  2. #2
    [Caveat: I am not an expert on either dark matter or dark energy.]

    Dark matter is extra "stuff" that it is postulated must exist to account for various observed features of galaxies. For example, galaxies appear to rotate almost like solid plates with stars attached, rather than having the stars that are further from the centre orbiting slower than the ones closer in (as happens with planets in our solar system). This "problem" can be solved by postulating that there is a lot more extra mass in galaxies than we can observe. That mass must be "dark" in that it does not emit light or other radiation that lets us observe it directly. And that rules out most of the ordinary kinds of matter we already understand well.

    Dark energy is more like an "antigravity" force that is needed to explain the apparently accelerating expansion of our universe. It is postulated that there's a mysterious type of energy that pushes matter apart. Presumably that energy affects both ordinary matter and dark matter as well.

  3. #3
    keith1
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by machiaventa View Post
    Fellows:
    Can anyone elaborate as to the exact difference between Dark matter and Dark energy. I have read explanations of each and seems that Dark matter is the scaffolding of the universe and Dark energy is what is going to tear it a part molecule by molecule. Some how I find this confusing,even yet more puzzleing than any other theory yet proposed by the world's scientist.

    Machiaventa
    Here is an easy one page explanation (courtesy NASA):
    map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

    Dark Matter IS LIKELY some form of "known matter", in a different configuration than "known matter forms", or perhaps a whole new form of matter not yet understood. Examples of it's "gravity signature" can be witnessed in photos of galaxy cluster groups.

    Dark Energy is more prevalent in the universe as time progresses, hinting it's mysterious force (energy, matter, or a form of both?) is likely tied to expansion dynamics.

    Here is one of the latest news stories on Dark Energy research (one page, courtesy National Geo/Nature link):
    news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100721-science-space-dark-energy-test-theories-new-map-universe/

  4. #4
    I just watched this hour long video of something called God, Time, and the Myth of the Big Bang.

    He talks about Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
    Now you have to listen hard between his series of strawman and repetitious implicitness but he makes some...some good points.

    One of them is that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are essentially ways of covering up for the lackings in the Big Bang Theory....Which I kinda find true. I abandoned the Big Bang theory after it was clear this wasn't a theory that relied on simple logistics and ballistics...Or let's say that's when I became skeptical...

    The video says one thing loud and clear.
    "It may be time to abandon the Big Bang concepts"

  5. #5
    Registered Senior Member machiaventa's Avatar
    Posts
    95
    I believe that our Universe came into existance by pure thought of superior intelligence which I refer to as the Creator. He gave us the abilty to study and one figure out how it was accomplished in this manner. After all it would awful boring for this wonderful thing we all have called the brain to having nothing think or wonder about with it's conscious part. Everyone lpves a mystery and the Universe is the biggest I have seen so far.

    Machiaventa

  6. #6
    Penguinaciously duckalicious. Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Posts
    15,966
    Quote Originally Posted by machiaventa View Post
    I believe that our Universe came into existance by pure thought of superior intelligence which I refer to as the Creator.
    That's one way to get this thread assigned to Pseudoscience or the Cesspool.

    He gave us the abilty to study and one figure out how it was accomplished in this manner.
    Yet, despite this "creator-given ability to study" not only has no-one figured out how it was done no-one has even managed to show that there is a "creator".

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    One of them is that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are essentially ways of covering up for the lackings in the Big Bang Theory....Which I kinda find true.
    Nobody is "covering up" anything. Dark matter and dark energy are tentative explanations put forward to help explain inconsistencies between the basic theory and actual observations. Obviously, they aren't confirmed theories or complete theories yet. They are cutting-edge science.

    It's ok as a scientist not to know everything. That's what being a scientist is all about. Science isn't some dogmatic edifice that can't be questioned or modified - unlike religious dogma.

    I abandoned the Big Bang theory after it was clear this wasn't a theory that relied on simple logistics and ballistics...Or let's say that's when I became skeptical...

    The video says one thing loud and clear.
    "It may be time to abandon the Big Bang concepts"
    Fine. If you have a superior theory, let's discuss it. Present your alternative.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    keith1
    Guest
    I miss Ned Wright's "News of the Universe" .
    He must be very busy...

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Nobody is "covering up" anything. Dark matter and dark energy are tentative explanations put forward to help explain inconsistencies between the basic theory and actual observations. Obviously, they aren't confirmed theories or complete theories yet. They are cutting-edge science
    Yes, I know James. I've done an immense amount of study on the universe and the history of discovery.

    But I can't help but wonder if we aren't looking at the signs incorrectly and clinging to this Big Bang Theory despite many of our ideas that brought the theory forth...aren't true.

    I mean the guy is extremely suspect...
    But he brought up Hubble as well. The Ultra Deep Field.
    Our expectations when we peer further into the universe is to see less Galaxies...not more.-That's his statement of sciences conclussion and it might be a strawman.

    Is it true that we expected to see early young Galaxies?
    Not the fully formed ones in the UDF images?



    It's ok as a scientist not to know everything. That's what being a scientist is all about. Science isn't some dogmatic edifice that can't be questioned or modified - unlike religious dogma.
    But there is scientific dogma. Where you find humans you will find dogma.
    And if I were to cut the knife both ways then seeing the evidence that has been turned back on the Big Bang ...it would seem to meet a religious style of adherence to the original theory as they continue to rework it.

    Once we knew that the Universe wasn't slowing down...why didn't we abandon the theory? Why did we make up Dark Energy to solve the wrong answer of the original theory?

    Why does the Big Bang have to be right by this initial burst of energy?


    Fine. If you have a superior theory, let's discuss it. Present your alternative.
    There is one obvious theory.
    That there was no "Bang". That there was nothing and then space condensed out ambient energy.

    It would fit the uniform nature that we actually see instead of suggesting there was some explosion and then trying to explain how it became uniform.

    I'd like our theories to actually fit the facts instead of endlessly modifying theories that contradict the evidence that we gather later.

  11. #11
    Saquist:

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    But I can't help but wonder if we aren't looking at the signs incorrectly and clinging to this Big Bang Theory despite many of our ideas that brought the theory forth...aren't true.
    On the flip side, many observations support the theory remarkably well. If it really didn't explain anything very well we would have tossed it.

    Is it true that we expected to see early young Galaxies?
    Not the fully formed ones in the UDF images?
    I'm not an astrophysicist, so can't comment in detail. But from memory, we do generally see younger-looking galaxies as we look further out into space.

    But there is scientific dogma. Where you find humans you will find dogma.
    And if I were to cut the knife both ways then seeing the evidence that has been turned back on the Big Bang ...it would seem to meet a religious style of adherence to the original theory as they continue to rework it.
    It is re-worked because it remains, at present, the best theory we have. The chances that the whole thing is completely wrong are about the same as the chances were in 1890 (i.e. pre-Einstein) that Newton's laws were completely wrong.

    Once we knew that the Universe wasn't slowing down...why didn't we abandon the theory? Why did we make up Dark Energy to solve the wrong answer of the original theory?
    Actually the original big bang theory happily accommodated several possibilities, including a finite universe that would eventually recollapse and an infinite universe that would keep expanding forever but at a decreasing rate. It required observations to decide which particular big bang model our universe actually fitted. Don't think of the big bang theory as just one fixed set of ideas. The theory has a number of "free" parameters than can be tweaked in the light of observational findings.

    Dark energy has been built into the big bang theory right from the start - we just didn't call it that in the past. Einstein himself allowed for a "cosmological constant" in his equations which today we describe as an effect of dark energy.

    There is one obvious [alternative] theory.
    That there was no "Bang". That there was nothing and then space condensed out ambient energy.
    How does that help explain observed features such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, the accelerating expansion of the universe, the hydrogen/helium ratio of the universe etc.? Can that theory explain these things at all? Where can I find out more details about your alternative?

    I'd like our theories to actually fit the facts instead of endlessly modifying theories that contradict the evidence that we gather later.
    Science is incremental. That's how it works. We're constantly modifying our ideas in the light of new, unexpected evidence.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Saquist:



    On the flip side, many observations support the theory remarkably well. If it really didn't explain anything very well we would have tossed it.
    You put more faith in science than I would.
    I try an account for human hubris.



    I'm not an astrophysicist, so can't comment in detail. But from memory, we do generally see younger-looking galaxies as we look further out into space.
    We should see less of them...yet we see more.


    It is re-worked because it remains, at present, the best theory we have.
    I can't say it's the best.
    The most accepted...yes.




    Actually the original big bang theory happily accommodated several possibilities, including a finite universe that would eventually recollapse and an infinite universe that would keep expanding forever but at a decreasing rate.
    I'm well aware of the open, closed and flat universe theories postulated at the begining.



    Dark energy has been built into the big bang theory right from the start - we just didn't call it that in the past. Einstein himself allowed for a "cosmological constant" in his equations which today we describe as an effect of dark energy.
    That's true but we haven't exactly confirmed somethings about the expansion of the universe yet.

    And I want to say on that same topic...This site has been the source of more scientific errors in Astronomy and QFT on the net masquerading as real science I have ever seen on the web.

    This is almost the perfect example of what I'm talking about. If the Big Bang is wrong, it's like this site. Ego's so big that they swallowed the truth. I made a thread on my theories of the universe some time back and a lot of you guys said my theory was wrong because I assumed that Light and Energy were the same. They told me my teachers were wrong and that it's a "misconception".

    And yet...I have noted six DIFFERENT documentaries explicitly stating that they were the same and interchangeable and not merely conversion equivalents from one to another. I was floored. These forums are such a bad place to get real scientific information because every few minutes someone is having an ego trip on religion, philosophy, or some interpretation that endangers their beliefs. It's disappointing.



    How does that help explain observed features such as the cosmic microwave background radiation,
    That's a no brainer. They found that CMB is uniform through out the universe from this location...not like a Big Bang which would be reducing. More intense in one part of the sky and less intense at others.

    the accelerating expansion of the universe,
    The man suggest that the redshift may be illusion. And it would seem that it can be deceiving such as with Sharon and Quasars.
    A uniformed creation of the universe explains the uniform distribution of matter. I don't know...

    It seems to me that in our universe Gravity is the acceleration of the universe and Time is any expansion of the universe. This is my former theory and it was really well the effects we've seen in QTF and may actually be an UFT.

    the hydrogen/helium ratio of the universe etc.? Can that theory explain these things at all? Where can I find out more details about your alternative?
    I'll let you know if I find any other sources but these are my musings and my musing alone.


    Science is incremental. That's how it works.
    It's also how it fails.
    Science will make more mistakes than the answers that it discovers. There is an intrinsic danger to holding fast to theories which become encumbered in disproving facts This is just for arguments sake. If someone says...you may have it wrong...it makes me want to listen...Not science...there this, stubborness that refuses to entertain new ideas.

    Frankly I'm surprised String Theory and Super String Theory got in there.

  13. #13
    Valued Senior Member brucep's Avatar
    Posts
    2,074
    [QUOTE=Saquist;2593679]You put more faith in science than I would.
    I try an account for human hubris.



    Maybe your next comment should be sent using smoke signals.

  14. #14
    Unprotected pseudoscience…I like it!

  15. #15
    Saquist:

    You put more faith in science than I would.
    I try an account for human hubris.
    What about your own hubris in believing that your own amateur "musings" are superior to the work of employed and dedicated professional physicists?

    I'm not an astrophysicist, so can't comment in detail. But from memory, we do generally see younger-looking galaxies as we look further out into space.
    We should see less of them...yet we see more.
    Can you link me to something that explains this in more detail?

    It is re-worked because it remains, at present, the best theory we have.
    I can't say it's the best.
    The most accepted...yes.
    What's the best theory, in your opinion? And I'm not talking about vague guesswork and speculation here; I mean "theory", as in fleshed out, mathematical, peer-reviewed scientific theory.

    That's true but we haven't exactly confirmed somethings about the expansion of the universe yet.
    Which things are you thinking of, in particular?

    And I want to say on that same topic...This site has been the source of more scientific errors in Astronomy and QFT on the net masquerading as real science I have ever seen on the web.
    You haven't looked at much of the web, then. The web's full of sites "masquerading as real science". At least sciforums has some real scientists here. In my experience, many scientific misconceptions of amateurs are quickly addressed here.

    I made a thread on my theories of the universe some time back and a lot of you guys said my theory was wrong because I assumed that Light and Energy were the same. They told me my teachers were wrong and that it's a "misconception".
    Please link to the relevant thread so I can refresh my memory.

    And yet...I have noted six DIFFERENT documentaries explicitly stating that they were the same and interchangeable and not merely conversion equivalents from one to another. I was floored.
    You have noted six documentaries that claim that light and energy are the same thing? I can tell you that they are not the same thing. Light, in the modern picture, consists of wave packets called photons, which carry energy. But energy itself is not a "thing" in the same way that a photon is a thing. Energy is an abstraction; photons are very real.

    Documentaries may blur the matter with pop-science statements like "Light is concentrated energy" or something like that, but that doesn't make them right. If you really want to learn about what energy is and what light is, don't rely on pop-science documentaries as your main source. Instead, try reading an introductory physics textbook written for physics students.

    How does that help explain observed features such as the cosmic microwave background radiation
    That's a no brainer. They found that CMB is uniform through out the universe from this location...not like a Big Bang which would be reducing. More intense in one part of the sky and less intense at others.
    I get the impression that you think the big bang happened at a single location in space, somewhere removed from where the Earth is now. That is false. And what do you mean by "reducing" here?

    the accelerating expansion of the universe
    The man suggest that the redshift may be illusion.
    Caused by what?

    A uniformed creation of the universe explains the uniform distribution of matter. I don't know...
    But the big bang theory explains an approximately uniform distribution of matter - and it also explains why the distribution is not perfectly uniform. In other words, it explains what we see.

    It seems to me that in our universe Gravity is the acceleration of the universe and Time is any expansion of the universe.
    See, I read that sentence and it doesn't make sense to me at all. It's like you're not using language in the way that a physicist uses it. How can gravity be acceleration? How can it be the acceleration of the universe? As I sit in my chair and I feel gravity pulling me downwards, how is that "acceleration of the universe" manifesting itself in regards to me? I don't see the connection.

    Similarly, how can time be expansion? Expansion involves space, does it not? Time involves clocks and durations etc. So what does it mean for time to be expansion? It makes no sense to me. The problem is not the physics - it's more fundamental. It's a problem with the use of language, first and foremost.

    There is an intrinsic danger to holding fast to theories which become encumbered in disproving facts This is just for arguments sake. If someone says...you may have it wrong...it makes me want to listen...Not science...there this, stubborness that refuses to entertain new ideas.
    Scientists are employed specifically to entertain new ideas. That's their job description. If science was fixed and unchanging and mired in dogma, as you appear to believe it is, then there would be no need to employ scientists - just engineers to apply the known and accepted concepts.

    Frankly I'm surprised String Theory and Super String Theory got in there.
    Why? What's the problem with String theory, in your opinion? Have you found a fatal error in the theory?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Saquist:



    What about your own hubris in believing that your own amateur "musings" are superior to the work of employed and dedicated professional physicists.
    I never said I was superior to anyone.
    I don't think it, and therefore for my questions aren't a matter of ego.

    Can you link me to something that explains this in more detail?
    I don't think so. Some of the best theories you'll find in school with people that can't publish their thoughts and theories. But we tend to give credence to those with websites and journal but that's personally not going to stop me from being objective about all the possibilities.



    What's the best theory, in your opinion? And I'm not talking about vague guesswork and speculation here; I mean "theory", as in fleshed out, mathematical, peer-reviewed scientific theory.
    I don't know. I give no extra weight of true to peer review than to musings.
    I just dislike contradictions. The Big Bang theory makes a bunch of assumptions that initially seemed logical but the facts haven't borne that out. That disturbs me. It means that we might have certain information correct but the whole by origin is a wrong conclusion.

    We're holding too fast to "Big Bang" I've heard too many contradictions by now.



    Which things are you thinking of, in particular?
    Well I mentioned Quasars... Redshift tells us that everything or most things are rapidly moving away from us and the further it is from us the faster it's receding. In one situation a quasar was physically attacked to one Galaxy by physical matter. That galaxy was relatively close to us by the Quasar according to redshift was very very far away.

    That's a contradiction. Somethings wrong there.



    You haven't looked at much of the web, then. The web's full of sites "masquerading as real science". At least sciforums has some real scientists here. In my experience, many scientific misconceptions of amateurs are quickly addressed here.
    I try not to venture into dubious areas of the web like religious sites with an ulterior motive. It's not that I mind them...sometimes they do have good information but they are often very biased. Their attempting to fight atheist.

    The point is ...they were wrong. This site was wrong.
    They were wrong about a critical statute of the universe: Light. I was told by my teachers to be wary of self made experts on the web and places where people are shy to place their identities behind their statements.

    He said my insights and understandings of the universe were remarkably profound putting the most complicated ideas in a very easy to understand concept. He said, Whoever told you that hasn't the slightest grasp of the nature of universe.

    I was shocked, because I took their statements on this site objectively despite my reservations. I subjugated myself to those that assumed to be superior...and were wrong...



    Please link to the relevant thread so I can refresh my memory.
    I've searched but I can't find it. It was a very short lived thread of mine speaking of the constants in universe.

    Matter and Energy
    Gravity and Acceleration
    Time and Universal expansion.




    You have noted six documentaries that claim that light and energy are the same thing? I can tell you that they are not the same thing. Light, in the modern picture, consists of wave packets called photons, which carry energy. But energy itself is not a "thing" in the same way that a photon is a thing. Energy is an abstraction; photons are very real.
    Yes...they completely contradict you.
    Documentaries may blur the matter with pop-science statements like "Light is concentrated energy" or something like that, but that doesn't make them right. If you really want to learn about what energy is and what light is, don't rely on pop-science documentaries as your main source. Instead, try reading an introductory physics textbook written for physics students.
    That's not what they said.
    Initially I thought this was just a way of explaining things, too.
    They said literally that matter is condensed forms of energy. At the heart of all matter is energy.

    Many of them made similar statements such as this.



    I get the impression that you think the big bang happened at a single location in space, somewhere removed from where the Earth is now. That is false. And what do you mean by "reducing" here?
    That very statement is contradictory.
    There is no single location in space. Space didn't exist.

    Reducing as in diminishing.



    Caused by what?
    That's where he was vague, I believe.
    I think he's concept of this is flawed. He suggest that we haven't extrapolated the true directions of travel for these galaxies with out years of observation to understand their trajectories.



    But the big bang theory explains an approximately uniform distribution of matter - and it also explains why the distribution is not perfectly uniform. In other words, it explains what we see.
    Through Dark Matter and Dark Energy?



    See, I read that sentence and it doesn't make sense to me at all. It's like you're not using language in the way that a physicist uses it. How can gravity be acceleration? How can it be the acceleration of the universe? As I sit in my chair and I feel gravity pulling me downwards, how is that "acceleration of the universe" manifesting itself in regards to me? I don't see the connection.
    We assume that gravity is direct a result of mass. We assume that it is matter that has some sort of attraction.
    What if it isn't?

    What if gravity is an indirect result of the expansion of the universe?
    The only thing we know for sure is that Matter has inertia, the resistance to a change in motion. What if that MOTION were universal? What if that motion was more than just universal? What if that Universal Motion was actually universal acceleration?

    It would mean (under my musings) that gravity would not exist with out Universal Acceleration. Some scientific theories actually go into this concept when they propose the end of the universe in collapse would lead to universal free-fall where gravity ceases to exist because all relative motion has ceased.


    Similarly, how can time be expansion? Expansion involves space, does it not? Time involves clocks and durations etc. So what does it mean for time to be expansion? It makes no sense to me. The problem is not the physics - it's more fundamental. It's a problem with the use of language, first and foremost.
    Maybe.
    It's related to the above...universal motion...but...
    One thing at a time.





    Scientists are employed specifically to entertain new ideas. That's their job description. If science was fixed and unchanging and mired in dogma, as you appear to believe it is, then there would be no need to employ scientists - just engineers to apply the known and accepted concepts.
    Yes, but I said stubborn...resistant to change not fixed and unchanging...Slow...in other words. Like a train that can't stop. Poor reflexes. It still becomes dogma just with out the fixed and unchanging. It's like inertia. That's the human element that has noting to do with science but everything to do with beliefs and ego. And there is plenty of ego in the scientific community.


    Why? What's the problem with String theory, in your opinion? Have you found a fatal error in the theory?
    No, I like the theory...But I'm surprised it caught on because science "says" it doesn't like safe theories.

  17. #17
    Registered Member
    Posts
    6
    You look like dark shit

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Ego's so big that they swallowed the truth. I made a thread on my theories of the universe some time back
    And did you stop to consider that perhaps the issue of oversized egos might apply to you too? Or are you like so many cranks where you think everyone else has a deluded view of their own ability and you don't?

    If you've got viable work then submit it for peer review with an appropriate journal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    We're holding too fast to "Big Bang" I've heard too many contradictions by now.
    And where did you hear these things, documentaries? Or are you keeping yourself up to date with the latest published work? I personally dislike watching physics documentaries because I spot all the half truths and sensationalising they do in order to make physics seem 'cool' or to keep the layperson viewers attention. Watching documentaries doesn't lead you to a place where you can make any kind of real critique of science. Any science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    I was told by my teachers to be wary of self made experts on the web and places where people are shy to place their identities behind their statements.
    So you're wary of 'self made experts' online but the fact you put yourself forth as a 'self made expert' isn't hypocritical? And aren't you using an pseudonym too?

    So far you've demonstrated you dismiss things without understanding, you don't practice what you preach and you have work which disagrees with the mainstream which you haven't had peer reviewed. Want to dig any further?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    That's a no brainer. They found that CMB is uniform through out the universe from this location...not like a Big Bang which would be reducing. More intense in one part of the sky and less intense at others.
    This is half incoherent and the bit which is coherent is wrong. The CMB is very well explained by the big bang. It is isotropic to a very small tolerance, with a power spectrum precisely as expected, and the minor variations follow early matter collapse. A CMB made by the BB would reduce over time, but it would reduce isotropically. If the CMB weren't isotropic to a large degree it would be a falsification of the BB.

    Stop watching TV documentaries and deluding yourself you grasp things you obviously don't. You are a self made 'internet expert', in that you believe yourself informed but you quite clearly are not.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post


    So you're wary of 'self made experts' online but the fact you put yourself forth as a 'self made expert' isn't hypocritical? And aren't you using an pseudonym too?
    I never said I was a "self made expert".

Similar Threads

  1. By common_sense_seeker in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 07-16-10, 02:07 AM
    Replies: 6
  2. By mr. jones in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 08-06-09, 08:15 PM
    Replies: 20
  3. By genep in forum Eastern Philosophy
    Last Post: 08-01-07, 05:23 PM
    Replies: 0
  4. By Teetotaler in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 12-12-06, 01:22 PM
    Replies: 42
  5. By Farsight in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 12-07-06, 02:58 AM
    Replies: 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •