Dark Energy, or Worse: Was Einstein Wrong? 

+LindaStevensBZ Yes. He organizes his presentations well and he's one of the very few who have so much confidence, energy and enthusiasm that their presentations of sophisticated material are as entertaining as they are informative.

Definitely.

Yes. I like both he and Copeland

yeah he's amazing, would love to meet him. i wish he had the popularity of ND Tyson.

He is good but i strongly recommend you to watch Wal Thornhill and other electric universe scientists on their youtube channel. (thunderbolts project)

Her's is more recent. 😄

todd joseph take a look at how Hub drew a straight line through the scatter plot. Perhaps you might consider gravity as a force rather than some thing that travels. (A feature of space-time itself). I love the way you are thinking.

Presentation 'actor'

Martin: You like the well-rehearsed atheist explanation.

He's such a great lecturer that it kinda pisses me off, in a mostly-joking way.

I can't get past that he sounds almost the same as Alan Alda myself.

medexamtoolsdotcom His wife probably tutored him. She’s probably gunna hit on me.

+John Morris: Maybe its just a matter of form but it does seem gratuitous and insulting. It's not as though Professor Carroll might be some sort of crackpot.

John Morris ...that disclaimer one sees ("the opinions expressed in this program do not NECESSARILY reflect those of ____") is not something put up because of anything "controversial" or due to "heterodoxy". This is a typical, often used disclaimer, usually tagged on at the end of these kinds of talks to indicate to viewers that Mr X or Ms Y is not representing whatever medium on which it airs. It does not represent any kind of judgment by the channel or hosting university or foundation, etc. This is just a way to let viewers/listeners know that the speaker is putting forth his own views. It doesn't mean that no one in that outfit wouldn't agree w/him or her.

It's just a legal formality. Nothing personal.

NSF gets money from congress. Congress is made up of individuals that advocate creationism. Any serious discussion of cosmology will take the big bang as a given. So either we get a disclaimer or someone will aim for a seat on the science committee to shut crackpots like Carroll up. I mean, obviously he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't quote scripture once!

They must believe in the Copenhagen interpretation kek

Hi Wee Wee, That's a bit of a wild comment. I have met many armchair scientists who manage to hold their own in technical conversations and sometimes contribute valid data. I would think those comments should be directed to the modern cosmologists who look us all in the face and tell us there is only 5% of expected matter in the universe, now If you purchased a 10 foot length of 2x4 wood and the vendor gave you a 6" piece and charged you for 10' then you would have something to say, but when modern cosmologists tell us there is only 5% of matter in the universe the world accepts it. To my mind an error of 95% tells me something is very, very wrong and more research is needed , but no we are then told that the missing matter is "DARK MATTER" that cannot be seen , cannot be detected . O How convenient and how unbelievable. A more believable answer is that the missing matter is occluded by other stars. Just one close star would occlud a cone of space which gets bigger the farther you go out. It may not be the answer but It would go part way to answering the huge loss of matter. Another part answer is that gravity lensing is far more widespread than we think and many ,many, pure images are in evidence and represent nothing but would look,like real stars but are in reality just the universes cinema. regards MoK

Mo King *You cannot learn what you think you know*

Dark matter is real and it can be measured and we know a lot about it. At least we'd know a lot about it if we wanted to. Matter interacts very strongly with dark matter and we literally see dark matter doing what it does every day...even right this instant as you read this. What's now called, "dark matter" is what used to be called, "the aether". at least back before the physics geniuses dismissed the aether as not existing. The reason we can't see dark matter is the same reason we can't see the air around us. It appears invisible but it's there. If you understand why you cannot see the air, it goes a long way to explaining why you can't see dark matter.

"You cannot learn what you think you know" you do understand that this cuts both ways right? armchairs and ivory towers notwithstanding.

Kevin T I'm just advocating formal education over homespun ideas

There's one about intrinsic instabilities in the dynamic space-time framework inducing a spatial entropy-like effect. From a certain perspective it's actually a bit simpler, as it doesn't require an anomalous spontaneous universal energy term. Or you could believe in negative signs. Or you could believe in the QM vacuum pressure and modify the calibration to fit the data. Or some combination. Combinations are always more complicated.

Try reading the comments on virtually any YT video covering dark matter, dark energy or any even moderately cutting edge and/or controversial science topic. You'll find some astonishingly convoluted explanations, from angels, to the electric universe, to gigantic conspiracies on the part of millions of scientists from just about every nation and organisation to keep the sheeple in line and fund their yachts-and-hookers lifestyle. Turns out particle physicists really get all the action, who knew?

Actually they have been proven. The Universe is expanding and accelerating, that requires energy. It's called dark energy because we don't know much more about it. Galaxies have been observed that require more than the mass of the visible matter to explain them. We also have gravitational lensing examples, images of which you can look up and see, that require much more mass than is visible. It's called dark matter, again dark because we don't know much more about it. But both are proven to exist.

They are only proven to exists if you assume that GR is indeed true. If you look from a slightly different point of view you could say that GR must be incomplete because it requires a bodge in form of dark energy and matter to make it work in large scale.

You could say that - but you would be wrong.

@@onemaninaboat MOND is on the way out.

Agree!

thanks for this, helped me find the paper. For anyone looking it's here arxiv.org/abs/1612.00266

Alex: And it's really not acceptable that these atheists get together for a circle-jerk explanation of the random, coincidental, and purposeless Universe.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as stated by Sherlock Holmes. That is to say, if the God idea cannot hold water as a scientific explanation (e.g. the age of the Earth, in the case of the biblical one), the truth must be in one of the possibilities that remain. I know, "a random, coincidental, and purposeless Universe" is a scary idea. I used to subscribe to the God idea.

@@Rocksite1 Atheists say the stupidest shit. I AM not scared of anything especially false information promoted by clueless militant atheists. See 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce that. GOD=7_4 Theory provides exhaustive evidence of GOD & God-incarnate - GOD704.wikia.com . Please read that and let me know exactly what data you have a problem with.

@@BradWatsonMiami Why is it not acceptable for a group of people to get together to share a common viewpoint? Does that not sound a lot like church? If you're gonna say this is not acceptable, you need to be fair on both sides. Why is this meeting a "circle-jerk" and church isn't? How is this false information? Why are you labeling atheists "militants"? I'd wager they're the least "militant" type of people out there. Have you ever heard of atheists starting war, chopping heads off, going on shooting sprees. I know I haven't, can't say the same for people following a religion.

Yes, without the humility of at least conceding it is your best guess as we would in discussion of these matters.

Religion.

lazychimp123 I'm guessing you're right. They keep telling me that if I had so much faith as a grain of mustard seed that I could move mountains, but I have yet to have them tell me how much faith it takes to raise the temp of a cc of water by a single degree.

***** hmmm so as faith approaches its maximum, it will always be proportional to any arbitrary amount of force minus a "not quite enough" constant... Interesting. I'm going to go unplug my toaster and have faith that unless an electrical current flows through the heating elements that it can't make toast. Everyone should probably seek shelter in their basement. Dividing by zero is a messy business. LOL

***** Odd... this posting of yours was marked as spam. I don't see anything remotely spammy about it. YT is strange.

***** Took a look at the linked video and I'm not sure I'd call it mediocre exactly. It's what I think of as an interest provoking popular science vid... for people who aren't allergic to science but aren't actually equipped with the tools to dive right in. Jason though looks like he's bypassed barking mad and gone right to full metal straightjacket material.

Actually, the evidence for dark matter is better than the evidence for a creation event. Or galactic expansion. The dark matter hypothesis cam as the result of direct observation not fitting theory, though it is far less mysterious than most media would have someone believe. By dark, people just mean, non-emitting. A vast cloud of interstellar neutrons would fit the bill if they had a different decay rate in intergalactic space. They might...we can't test it. We have no reason to think they do, but we don't know for sure. And what does this have to do with Einstein? Oh, maybe the GR equations are wrong? Sure. But that just means that everything else we have to work with is even more wrong. And Newtonian Gravity and QM are straight out. The entire adventure of calculus and computers was just ego stroking (only locally relevant self entertainment). Sure let's go with that. Why are you using that computer again? I don't mean offense, I'm just confused by your apparent logic.

David T So you believe in the "dark" side.... Very well, but it isn't scientific.

earlysda Isn't scientific? How so? To paraphrase astronomers: [ Hypothesis: galaxies follow basic orbital laws. Observations: galaxies mostly follow basic orbital laws, but not quite. Calculation: back calculate (curve fit) what would cause the deviation from orbital laws, based on the physics we already know. (Translate results to English and our new, adjusted...) Hypothesis: galaxies follow orbital laws, except in the outer/fringe regions where there is apparently something behaving like additional mass (i.e. matter) adjusting the outer galaxy's orbital motion. We can't see it in any part of the optical spectrum so it must be dark (by definition; since it is not lit up...). Since that is a bit of a mouthful, we'll say, "standard orbital motion, plus dark matter." Hey, is anyone listening? Guys? I know we're astronomers and not astrophysicists, but come on! This is interesting. NO! We are not doing our math badly! No we won't shut up. yes it makes things more complicated! No it is definitely not going away. Fine. We'll start our own conferences where it is OK to talk about things in the universe that don't follow the simple rules that describe all you want there to be. ] Many years later...physicists say, [ Whoa! The Hubble constant came out wrong. And it's more wrong the better our data gets. We need to fix the math. What do we already have? Nothing? Um...the astronomers have been talking about "dark matter" for a few decades now...maybe that would solve the problem! It helps! We're keeping it...but it is not enough! ] Now the physicists are desperate: [ Well, if we can't fit any more dark matter in our models without everything turning into a very different party, what are our other options? Well,as far as we can tell, the universe is made up of two basic and interacting things: there's matter, and there's energy. And we've already covered the matter part. So I guess it is dark, because we can't see it, and energy, because it is not matter. Hey! Einstein talked about this in his big blunder, the Cosmological Constant. It is an energy term! Maybe he was smarter than we even thought he was! Let's resurrect it and throw it at the new problem. It seems promising! Phew! OK, Dark Energy it is then. And sound confident about it! ] So my opinion is not so much about belief. To me it about there being something not quite right in the combination of our physics theory and observation. Part of the error is in the matter part of the calculations, either we're putting in the wrong numbers for the total matter because we can't see it (dark matter), or we are somehow misrepresenting the matter that is there because we can't see the error itself (a dark component to matter). Either way, there is something dark (unseen) and matter oriented (just saying "matter" is still shorter). Don't much care how it goes in the end, I just think it's a valuable conversation to be having, so I'm participating in it. And trying to keep people honest (especially when they aren't trying to be dishonest, because that demonstrates that they are confused) while I'm at it. Otherwise we'll all quickly get confused about what we're talking about. And yes, the dark matter observations are better--in that they better confirm strange behavior--than the details about the big bang. Even if only because the description of the latter hinges upon the details of the former in the current discussion. But also because the research has been ongoing for quite some time and the conversation, and theory, is well developed without any reference to the big bang.

David T It's never been observed outside of a mathematical equation.

Actually, it's fascinating you should say that. I had the same opinion until just recently. However, analysis of observational data from 2012 have demonstrated a columnar lensing effect from open space, implying that, at least in this case, there is a column of non luminescent matter strung between galaxies. Just as predicted! I just read about it the other day!

Hint?

Fun way to put it...though you forgot the cinnamon. A pie like that has gotta have some spice...

+Cynthia Avishegnath What, exactly, is your point? Just humor?

``Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.`` en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Cynthia Avishegnath no serious physicists claims dark matter is truth

@ Quentin Browne... Yep. As smart as his always pathetically inept *RU-vid comments* critics of note are dumb, or dishonest and ill-motivated. And that's *really* smart.

+Clyde Castleberry Or our universe is just some fundamental particle of another universe? Or we're just some super advanced high school students simulation project. Fun to contemplate, huh?

+Clyde Castleberry This is the kind of "contemplation" that people without enough education in the field do after a few bottles of beer or stiff tokes on a joint. It's *always* wrong.

What predictions could you make from that starting assumption?