Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Scientists are showing their human side. Egos are easily bruised.

Once the emotion subsides, hopefully constructive debate will arise leading to a greater understanding.

Regards

Steven

I think there's going to be sniping going on for quite awhile yet, if it ever really goes away entirely.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I think there's going to be sniping going on for quite awhile yet, if it ever really goes away entirely.

I've seen a battle with an algorithmic piece of wood, and an empirical one...

It's not pretty.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

This is funny stuff... Mark, your extra dimensional thoughts are on par with what I see from these guys...

ROFL

Hey, don't drag me into the steaming pile of you-know-what that you created.

You're flying solo mate. I get into enough trouble around here as it is.

Nothing wrong with my thoughts; they're just suggestions ya know!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nothing wrong with my thoughts; they're just suggestions ya know!

Theoretically

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Theoretically

Hey Carl, how about this "Theoretical...Hypothetical...N on-Scientific Method...Suggestion"?! ***Covered all my bases now I think***

Dark matter and dark energy being simply the activity of other metrics moving energy (possibly even mass) around in higher dimensional space, BUT, with spatial and perhaps temporal [dimensional] connectivity to our spacetime.

So what we might see is unexplainable [apparent] movement of mass/energy in spacetime, attributed to higher dimensional metric carry-over values into spacetime. These effects could be local, as in the case of dark matter, or perhaps universal, as in the case of dark energy.

No phantoms, only shadows of metric ghosts; energetic activity occurring elsewhere.

Let's call it 'Metric Ghosting'.


Just take the Randell-Sundrum model to the next logical stage, ie higher dimensional gravitational effects cascading down into spacetime. Yeah?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall...3Sundrum_model

Clip of Randell on Charlie Rose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMm38apPNUs

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Ha ha Alex, can you answer a basic question? lets pretend that EM is not know nor is QED and even E=mc2. Now just using 400 year old Newton and the observed rotation of galaxies, can we show that galaxies must contain more matter (mass) then we can observe?

Now you don't need to answer (but go ahead anyway) what I'm showing is there are many lines of evidence for the existence of dark matter. The science relating to dark matter has come along way from that basic observation, but is has moved forward step by step based on observation and evidence.

It's quite alright for you or others to come up with a better explanation of the evidence, but you need to explain all of the known observations and you need to do it better then the existing theory. I guess this is the bit you really don't do.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I've seen a battle with an algorithmic piece of wood, and an empirical one...

It's not pretty.

New empirical evidence for dark energy:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1225864840246

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

New empirical evidence for dark energy:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1225864840246

Yep, he should be able to tell us what's going on

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

It's quite alright for you or others to come up with a better explanation of the evidence, but you need to explain all of the known observations and you need to do it better then the existing theory. I guess this is the bit you really don't do.

Nobody "needs" to do anything; might I point-out that this is just a discussion forum.

This is precisely where to air ones ideas, as good or bad as they may be.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by bojan

New empirical evidence for dark energy:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1225864840246

Guess that's an end to the thread then....where's the 'Popcorn' emoticon???

Can we have a 'Popcorn' emoticon please? Mods?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Guess that's an end to the thread then....where's the 'Popcorn' emoticon???

Can we have a 'Popcorn' emoticon please? Mods?

Problem solved...no need for the LHC or multimillion dollar research grants anymore

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Now just using 400 year old Newton and the observed rotation of galaxies, can we show that galaxies must contain more matter (mass) then we can observe?

Nail on the head brother. Time for popcorn

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nail on the head brother.

Yes, but then it's a case of identifying what that mass is made of. If you can't see it and detect it (except by its gravitational influence), then you have to come up with a way of explaining what it is.

Once you've ruled out all the obvious and usual suspects, then what are you left with??

That's when you have to make some left of field assumptions as to what it might be...then try and formulate a hypothesis to explain what you think it may be.

Then you test your hypothesis, try to falsify it (as many times as it takes), then come up with a theory to explain the why's and wherefores.

And still get left with an unsatisfactory answer

Because you're afraid to admit you haven't a clue at what you're looking at, and understand it even less

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Because you're afraid to admit you haven't a clue at what you're looking at, and understand it even less

Now we are getting there .

Mark