Slashdot Mirror
Dark Energy May Be Changing
SpaceAdmiral writes "Nature is reporting that Dark energy, the hypothetical energy driving the universe's expansion, may not be as constant as previously thought. According to new research the strength of dark energy may be very different now than it was when the universe was young."
I am still confused why we need dark energy AND dark matter. Seems like we are missing something. I would give it 20 years or so before they figure out that both those damn things would just cancel themselves out.
And one other thing, gravitrons. If there are really particles of gravity then they would have mass and thus create more gravitrons in an endless cycle.
Of course I have not kept up with all this wierd new physics crap lately, I figured that by the time i learned all of the terminology the theories would change.
A blog about stuff.
Well might you be. We need them both to prop up the Big Bang after it was falsified, over and over again, by observation. Cosmologists and astronomers have individually faced a choice, each time: ditch the only hypothesis that journals' Review Committees would allow to be mentioned in publications, or invent like crazy, ad hoc. After decades of this, the field strains under the weight of a towering edifice of pure conjecture, supported by generations of graduates and professors who know nothing else, are equipped to work on nothing else and, most importantly, dare permit nothing else to be discussed or funded.
Next time you see an astronomical press release that ends with one of the principals hoping the new observation might someday help, through some mysterious process, offer us insight into the nature of dark matter, recognize the obligation to tie the work to the guild imperative. Be glad that the telescopes and space probes are built and operated by engineers. The data they collect -- and the pretty and sometimes astonishing pictures that have led us to continue funding their work, despite all -- will someday support an actual empirical theory. In the meantime, laugh.
"Essentially, the rotation speed of galaxies is too fast given the mass that can be seen, so there must be some mass that doesn't emit light as conventional, baryonic matter does. Dark matter was first hypothesized by Zwicky in 1933 and has been well accepted throughout the astronomical community for decades."
Another "theory" could be that the original "theory" is just plain wrong.
Event: Multiple observations provably invalidate theory.
Reaction: Invent new magic error term to cover up holes in theory. Error term must in order to be efficient also have special properties of being unmeasurable, undetectable and only cause desired interactions in situations when salvage of broken theory requires it.
Solution: dark energy/matter/whatever
And they call themself scientists.
Except for the proven fact that SPACE ISN'T A FUCKING VACUUM, it's a PLASMA, Plasma's are near-perfect electrical conductors, magnetic fields are a byproduct of electrical fields. There are so many testable and valid hypothesis for many other explanations that could eliminate the need to invent things like dark matter/dark energy but too many oldschool astronomers have thier heads so far up their asses that we get stuff like: "Comets are mostly ice, no wait their dirty iceballs, er I mean icy dirtballs, erm...I...er...no they're have a powedery surface....no wait they're made of cheetos"