Slashdot Mirror
Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Cast Doubt On the Big Bang?
StartsWithABang (3485481) writes "Back in the 1960s, after the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the Big Bang reigned supreme as the only game in town. But back then, we also assumed that what we consider as "normal matter" — i.e., protons, neutrons and electrons — was, along with photons and neutrinos, the only stuff that made up the Universe. But the last 50 years have shown us that dark matter and dark energy actually make up 95% of the energy composition of our cosmos. Given that, is there any wiggle room to possibly invalidate the Big Bang?"
There's always the possibility of a theory being falsified but in this case the answer is almost certainly no.
The big bang is not going to be invalidated, so say COBE, WMAP and PLANCK.
Also, it's actually less than 5% baryonic matter it seems, 4.4%
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/unive...
Be aware that dark matter is just matter we can't directly detect with our current technology (or just haven't /yet/), it's not something magical.
I believe that there is some wiggle room, looking at the electric universe theory.
...that you clearly don't possibly understand!
Slashdot on weekends allows a lot of crap.
T
Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Cast Doubt On the Big Bang?
I have no idea! You should probably ask a physicist.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Well, the fact that we can still hear the universe ringing at the exact range and frequency curve predicted by George Gamow nearly twenty years before Wilson and Penzias "discovered" it (see the cosmic background radiation - look it up), I'd say no.
Also, the farther out we look, the faster galaxies are moving away from us. Run that backwards in time and we're all in the same place about 13.7 billion years ago. Again, I'd say no.
Also, the balance of H, He and Li that was predicted...
Also, the evolution and make-up of stars and proportions of heavy elements in near and far galaxies...
Etc. etc.
If a headline ends in a question mark the answer is always no. If the answer was yes they wouldn't ask, they'd tell.. The question mark is how shitty opinion pieces trying to push a view point try to masquerade as news.
As stated below by others, just because it's "dark" doesn't mean it's not just ordinary matter.
It's just that we can't actually see it.
Given the twists and turns of galaxy-sized gravitational pulls, it's hardly surprising that there's stuff out there that we can't directly or indirectly observe (but that we believe has to be out there for other things to look like they do).
The only reason that something is "dark" is because we think it should be there but can't actually find it. Having 95% dark matter/energy just means that we know LESS about the universe than we did before - which is not at all unusual when you've just passed a cusp of understanding.
When we "knew" everything was atoms, we thought we had 100% knowledge. When we split the atom, we then realised that we knew only 1% of what was happening. Then we caught up again to something approaching 100% "understanding". And hit a wall. When we scale that wall, our "understanding" will drop dramatically.
That's what's happened with dark energy/dark matter. Think of it as our ignorance quotient increasing because of the discovery of new evidence. Not as some vast debunking of existing science - that's like saying "atoms don't exist" and abandoning all the working atomic science we already have just because we find out that the atom isn't the complete story, or abandoning all Newtonian physics because of the discovery of quantum physics.
It just doesn't work like that. The best bit of dark matter science is ahead of us. We're in ignorance, looking for the light. Or, in this case, the dark.
I thought Dark Matter was conceived to account for missing matter that the Big Bang theory predicts needs to exist.
I would say quite the opposite - that the existence of dark mater and dark energy suggests a possible mechanism for the initial rapid expansion (inflation) without resorting to "magic" forces we have not yet observed.
The electric universe or ionized plasma theory looks great on paper, but the cosmic scale currents and magnetic fields it describes would create easily detectable phenomena which are not actually observed.
I've personally observed a number of Christian astronomers cite "The Big Bang Never Happened", as possible testimony that the universe isn't 13.8 billion years old after all. Having actually read the book I enjoy pointing out that Eric Lerner's conclusion about the age of the universe being 150 billions of years old is completely out of wack with actual observations, and cherry picking parts of scientific ideas doesn't work the same way as cherry picking passages of other books. If your theory predicts things that don't match reality - throw it away and try again. Read up on dating quasars using spin decay rates if you really want to know.
We're finding it quite easy to directly detect its affects with our current technology - it's called a telescope. We just have no clue as to what it is or how it works.
I'd like to point out that gravity is in the same category. Also time.
We do know a lot more about light and electricity. Please check out "QED" by Richard Feynman. Well we actually don't know how that works ether, but we've figured out the math to make very precise predictions that usually match reality so we must be on the right track.
It's quite the opposite. You need dark matter and dark energy in order to explain the CMB and the distribution of matter in the Universe. Dark matter and dark energy fit perfectly in the theory, that's the main reason why the alternatives to dark energy/matter that have been proposed were rejected: they fail to explain the CMB and the distribution of matter, while the dark matter and energy explain it perfectly.
I thought Dark Matter was conceived to account for missing matter that the Big Bang theory predicts needs to exist.
No, it (mostly) came about when it was noticed that galaxies required a lot more mass than was visiible to keep from flying apart. The speeds of stars 'orbiting' was too high, and the things should have flown off. There were other oddities observed as well. All the behaviors observed could be explained if there was a lot more gravitational mass than what could be seen. Some of things seen were quite bizarre, too, and required the stuff to account for things acting the way they did.
Enter Dark Matter as a formal theory..
No, dark matter was called up to explain why galaxies are spinning up to twenty times faster than they should, and that they spin more like a rotating platter then the water in a drain.
If it was just that - galaxies are spinning too fast - it's conceivable that there might be another force at play. However - there's now extremely strong evidence thanks to observations of colliding galaxies and gravitational lensing that it is indeed gravity, and whatever this dark mater is - it doesn't interact with normal mater.
Dark energy is the creepy one. A force that seems to only act on the large spaces between galaxies and pushes them apart faster and faster. As the cosmos continues to expand at an ever increasing rate, will dark energy become strong enough to pull all matter apart - nobody knows!
Sleep well!
The thing which is going to change quite soon is how we define dark energy. But until it's confirmed we can't say that for sure and it may take longer than expected.
Basically dark energy doesn't seem to exist in the dimensions we can observe, and it may be even smaller than what is currently known as "Planck Length".
Still, it's the biggest thing in the universe and the main underlying fabric of it were light and matter can exist.
Apparently as it seems the description of dark energy will be even more complicated than complete quantum mechanics and quantum theory, and even more difficult to understand as it doesn't exist in our 4 dimensions we can observe.
At the moment it's more likely that advancements in AI and understanding of theory of mind will be able to deliver such solution, thru the code and not just pen and paper.
It could be that it actually already happened it will just take many years to understand it.
I just love it when someone takes something we don't yet understand, and wraps it up in a bunch of big complicated scientific mumbo jumbo that makes even less sense.
It's simple really - we know three things for sure about dark energy. Based on our recent observations the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, this rate started increasing only five billion years ago, and the expansion seems to be greatest in the parts of the cosmos with the least mass (the large spaces between galaxies).
Studying distant supernovas is how two independent groups with independent data came to the same conclusion at the same time (see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6085/1090.2.summary).
Anything said about its complexity, dimensions, scale, or mental acuity needed to solve our understanding of it is pure speculation - or BS.
The Big Bang theory is not what a lot of people think it is, for example, inflation theory explains events before the big bang theory. The Big Bang theory is simply how the universe started from something very small and expanded, thats pretty solid, inflation theory explains how the universe got to a state for the big bang theory to take effect. The Big Bang, start of the universe, doesn't have a theory, we don't have a physics for that, so anything is possible.
Poor writing, a constant derision of mental health issues, and excessive salaries threatens the Big Bang Theory.
rewriting history since 2109
The reason dark matter and dark energy have not been directly detected is a simple one: science has not yet gone over to the dark side.
The equation goes something like this:
(Stuff we think we understand) + x / y = (the Universe as we think we understand it)
Hmmm..... What if.....
X = Dark Matter
Y = Dark Energy
"Wow! That fits perfectly!"
Inflation - ÃoeYou Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It MeansÃ.
You're right about the Big Bang not being what people think it is - that term rather implies that you could observe it from the outside and see some gigantanormus explosion. It would be better to call it a "the entire cosmos was insanely dense super hot energy particle soup" theory. Space itself eventually grew enough for the cosmos to cool and condense to become the kind of matter we know - gas atoms and light, then eventually stars and galaxies. The cosmic background radiation is light from this condensing into atoms period - which took only about three minutes. We know this from the ratio of elements that we observe around us today. Steven Weinberg has a good book about this - or Simon Singh's book for something a bit more recent.
If you assume an infinitely dense starting point (the Big Bang), this condensing period (the three minutes) took place some 300000 years after the Big Bang. The smoothness of the cosmic background radiation suggests however that the start of the expansion of the cosmos was much faster right after the Big Bang than the expansion during the condensing period. This also suggests that the total size of the cosmos is perhaps hundreds of times larger than our observable cosmos. This faster early expansion of the cosmos is thought to have multiplied both space and matter - and is referred to as Inflation. Inflation wasn't before the Big Bang - it's an integral part of it.
You are right about not knowing about the start of the Big Bang - or anything before the Big Bang happened - we can't observe anything that happened before the condensing period, and sort of by definition outside our observable space.
These theories have their own problems. As noted on Slashdot previously, neither exist around dwarf globular clusters or in the local region of the Milky Way. It is not altogether impossible that our models of gravity are flawed at supermassive scales at relativistic velocities, that there's corrections needed that would produce the same effect as currently theorized for this new kind of matter and energy.
Remembering that one should never multiply entities unnecessarily, one correction factor seems preferable to two exotic phenomena that cannot be directly observed by definition.
But only if such a correction factor is theoretically justified AND explains all related observations AND is actually simpler.
There is just as much evidence these criteria are true as there is for dark stuff - currently none.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Dark Side of the Moon
Should we still put stock in the Big Bang?
we'd like to have non-baryonic fairly massive (so relatively cold) particles. Dark matter is anything that doesn't interact with regular matter via the strong or gravitational interactions. Neutrinos don't.
More and more I'm getting a feeling that science has been down this road before. That our understanding of subatomic particles and the distant edges of the Universe is similar to the pre-Copernican use of epicycles to understand astronomy. That the search for dark matter (and probably string theory too) is a search for that final missing epicycle that will make the model work just right.
I think we need to look for a Galileo or Copernicus who has some whacky, undeveloped alternate concept that if only we could change our point of view, we would see that it makes everything so much more clear.
Will
Seeing that our entire universe is little more than a spec in space, I always found the Big Bang to be as silly as creation.
Sure, it's possible... But it's too odd. I've always preferred something simpler which is that our universe is more similar to an exploding star which contained all the energy and mass and simply went boom.
It just seems that all the matter and energy in our universe more likely came from a single body of mass of where they are as plentiful as the stars in the sky.
What if this is a similar case? Like, say, (normal) matter having gravity properties that only become noticeable on a cosmic scale?
Models like this have been considered such as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). These models were largely shot down by the aptly named Bullet Cluster. This is a system of two galaxies colliding at a high relative speed. The gas from the smaller "bullet" cluster collides with the gas in the larger cluster causing it to slow down, heat up and emit X-rays so we can see it.
So far so go. However you can also look at the mass distribution by seeing how it distorts the light from galaxies behind the cluster (this is called gravitational lensing). This shows that most of the mass of the smaller cluster has not slowed down and is now separated from where all the gas in the cluster is located. Effectively the collision has separated the matter from the dark matter because, unlike normal matter, dark matter has a tiny cross-section for interacting with itself or other matter. This is exceedingly hard to explain by modifying the behaviour of normal matter since you are observing a gravitational field where there is no normal matter.
They cast doubt on scientists' ability to do math. There has never been any verifiable evidence that it exists and it has never been measured.
The answer is no.
TFA says this in about 10 pages, with all the gory details.
Can we try no to have clickbait headlines? TFA is a blog called "Ask Ethan" so it makes sense for the title to be a question. A more appropriate headline here would have been "Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't Impact the Big Bang."
seriously, this scream religious belief trying to win over science.
I bet in a few years, a new theory called "Dark Bang" will replace it.
Table-ized A.I.
It doesn't make any difference. Like the global warming and lie detector frauds, it will continue to be promoted as valid.
I'm probably a bit biased here, but also an expert, since I am a physicist who studies dark matter for a living.
The title's question doesn't even make sense! Big bang theory, and in particular studying the exact power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, is by far the strongest evidence we have for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. All those pie charts you've seen showing the divisions of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy? If they're properly cited, I guarantee every single one of them comes from data from WMAP or PLANCK: CMB experiments! You can't say that dark matter gives you room to invalidate the big bang, because without that we don't have really any strong evidence for non-baryonic dark matter in the first place...
well, if Dyson spheres are anywhere near the size of the solar system, they would radiate in the infrared. Longer infrared the larger they are.
You could imagine a Dyson sphere that is vastly larger than a solar system -- like, a hundred AU across, or so--that would radiate waste heat in millimeter wave, or even something vastly larger than that that would radiate in microwave.
But, of course, that doesn't solve the problem-- they would be shine like beacons to radio telescopes.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re: "I think we need to look for a Galileo or Copernicus who has some whacky, undeveloped alternate concept that if only we could change our point of view, we would see that it makes everything so much more clear."
Yes, you are right, and it's called the Electric Universe -- which is simply the application of laboratory plasma physics models to cosmic plasmas. What people seem to not be aware is that there is extreme divergence between the Big Bang / MHD version of plasmas, and those plasmas we use every day to light up fluorescent lights. Is it simply a coincidence that fixing these models so that they can conduct electrical currents, hold electric fields, exhibit some minute electrical resistance & have electrodynamic magnetic fields also resolves the dark matter problem?
Cosmology is a very interesting subject. I enjoy reading about it but many of the ideas confuse me (that's easy to do). The explanations of cosmic expansion in most non-mathematical books usually point out that the expansion isn't like an explosion in space but that it's an expansion of space itself. If that's true then wouldn't anything used to measure the expansion be affected by the expansion as well? If I use a magically accurate ruler to measure the width of a sheet of paper and both the paper and the ruler are expanding, how would I know that the width has changed? Wouldn't the expansion of both the paper and the ruler cancel each other out?
I've tried to find an answer online and some explanations that I've seen say that expansion only applies to non-gravitationally interacting bodies I guess that means galaxies and galaxy clusters that are very far apart. But isn't gravity universal? Does it make senses to talk of bodies that are gravitationally isolated? Perhaps the explanations are talking about bodies that are only very weakly influenced by the mass of other bodies. Does the strength of local gravitational attraction tend to overcome the strength of cosmic expansion thereby reducing the expansion to a small and negligible number?
I'd sure appreciate some help about how to understand this.
Thanks.
On the other hand, perhaps it's like the neutrino. fusion (or fission, I forget) equations didn't work out so as a fudge the neutrino was invented, a super small particle that didn't interact with normal matter.
I'm sure it was met with derision by a certain group, an imaginary particle that could travel through the Earth, how ridiculous and obviously the idea of fusion was wrong in some fundamental way.
Well eventually the neutrino was observed, mostly matching up with theory (it was actually more complex, coming in a few flavours) and now we have neutrino observatories buried deep under the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re: "I'm sure it was met with derision by a certain group, an imaginary particle that could travel through the Earth, how ridiculous and obviously the idea of fusion was wrong in some fundamental way."
Don Scott & Wal Thornhill do not deny the existence of neutrinos, btw. If this is what you're getting at, this is misinformation being spread by the popular G+ RIT educator & astrophysicist, Brian Koberlein. What they do suggest is that within the electrical cosmology view, evidence for fusion can be observed within either the photosphere or the corona (in other words, at or near the Sun's surface). This has been briefly mentioned in Ratcliffe's The Virtue of Heresy (which points to actual observations), and if true, would explain why there appears to be an anti-correlation which comes and goes between sunspots & solar neutrinos. It's been suggested by many astrophysics that these anti-correlations are not actually based upon valid statistics -- the problem being is that they tend not to publish the graph, and it's pretty obvious from just looking at this graph that there is indeed an anti-correlation going on here. Eve if the statistics used to make the case are somehow problematic, it's clear that there is an anti-correlation worth investigating here that appears to come and go.
The ingredients for creating your own univerel:
- 26 % dark matter
- 69 % dark energy
- 5 % dark magic
Part of the issue here is that the question is ambiguous. "Big Bang" has morphed and changed into may forms in the last century+ when it was first envisioned. So, which big bang are you and TFA referring to? The original that said all the mass was a few hundred thousand miles across and blew up? The one taught in the 1970s that all mass was compressed into a ball about 270,000 light years across and blew up? The one that still requires all of the mass to exist already and compressed down to a compact size that you can find on U of M website? Or finally, are you referring to the Big Bang which steals the Quantum/Expanding Vacuum theory, but somehow claims to still be a "big bang"?
QV or EV invalidates the need for a Big Bang. Though we don't know where quantum particles come from, the theory has worked out that collisions would result in mass over time and a constant source of energy. All we need to start the Universe is a small vacuum and time (hence the Universe is much older than people in the Big Bang camp claim). There are a couple variations of the QV/EV theory, but they don't differ greatly like the "Big Bang" does. I hate to advertise for the guy, but Lawrence Kraus's book "A Universe from Nothing" is a decent read.
As to this "But the last 50 years have shown us that dark matter and dark energy actually make up 95% of the energy composition of our cosmos. Given that, is there any wiggle room to possibly invalidate the Big Bang?" pardon me if I don't share your enthusiasm. From a logical perspective we have been able to study quite a bit of our solar system hands on, and we have never been able to detect either dark matter or dark energy (no, gravitational lensing is not a test [see last paragraph]). Even the people using the term in science papers can't seem to agree on any what these things are, properties vary from model to model and person to person.
Dense matter is a logical probability, because we know that the majority of every atom is empty space. Under extremely high gravitational fields this area could be reduced making denser atoms. Dark matter and dark energy have been used exclusively to make people's mathematical models of the Universe work. It is just as likely that we don't fully understand gravity as much as we thought, as it is to have dark matter and energy. I'd further argue that since we have never detected either in our solar system, odds would favor that they don't exist. I don't rule it out as impossible, but I would not say it's probable.
Gravitational lensing does not require either dark matter or dark energy. I find it odd that the NASA link discusses Einstein as the person that came up with the theory, yet fails to mention that Einstein did not theorize these two "dark" things. Gravitational lensing is a result of having curved space and obviously gravity. Dark * is not required nor expected..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There is no "human" life in New Jersey.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
'cuz all the creationists will hear is "big bang debunked: science says god did it"
More and more I'm getting a feeling that science has been down this road before. That our understanding of subatomic particles and the distant edges of the Universe is similar to the pre-Copernican use of epicycles to understand astronomy.
It's certainly possible that we're merely stumbling about to find a better theory, but I think the epicycles analogy is generally a bad one -- it was good science back in the day, based on what was "known" about the universe at the time. Now we know better, because we've figured out that some of the fundamental assumptions of the old model were wrong, but good scientists of the day had no way of knowing some of those things were wrong (and in fact had some good evidence that those things were right -- like a bunch of very logical arguments why the earth is not in motion and how various effects that should happen if it were in motion were not observed... most of those problems were only explained in the 1800s, centuries after Copernicus). (For detailed background on myths about epicycles, see here for example.)
Also, please note that Copernicus and Galileo both still required epicycles, since they presumed circular orbits. (Galileo rejected Kepler's correct empirical observations of elliptical orbits, since they weren't as "perfect" as the circle... which shows how far even great "scientists" of the day were invested in the old ideas.)
If anything, I think a better analogy for the kind of situation you're assuming in modern science would be with Galileo's theory of the tides, which he created even though it didn't make much sense (and didn't accord with empirical evidence -- it required only one tide per day at noon), but it allowed him to justify his heliocentric hypothesis. In effect, it was a whole new idea tacked onto the old models without empirical support and only needed to fill in the gap to "prove" that the earth was in motion (since other things needed the prove that hadn't yet been observed, and most wouldn't be until centuries afterward). In a similar way, trying to "prove" our newer Big Bang models and particle physics models has led to the introduction of dark energy, strings, etc.
Thus, dark matter/energy and string theory are similar new ideas built up out of the old ones to "fill in the gaps" as it were, and we don't yet know whether they will pan out. Epicycles, on the other hand, were a very old and extremely well-accepted idea (which both Galileo and Copernicus used in their theories).
Finally, I would also note that gravity too was a sort of "fudge factor" introduced by Newton without evidence: where does this "unseen force" come from? how is it transmitted? We still don't thoroughly agree on those answers, centuries later. But it made the math work out for Newton's idea of universal gravitation, just as some of our modern theories do today.
So the question is -- are these new ideas more like Newton's spooky occult theory of an unseen force acting at a distance, or more like Galileo's attempt to make up a theory of the tides to hold his model of the universe together? Only time will tell.
Irrelevant to weather it is a success or not. You seem to think that success means 'measured to within a certain accuracy'
Yes actually that is precisely what it means for a scientific theory. The aim of a scientific theory is to model the behaviour of the universe therefore the most successful theory is the one that most accurately describes the universe's behaviour.
Relativity doesnt hold a handle to that. Not even close. Aside from GPS satellites, how has our understanding of relatively improved your life?
Leaving aside that you appear to be confusing Special Relativity with General Relativity, QED requires and relies on special relativity. Hence anything which QED gives us would not be possible without special relativity. You also seem to be confusing QED with quantum mechanics in general. QED has had some useful applications but mainly in medical physics since it only applies to relativistic electrons and high energy photons e.g. PET, electron beam treatment of skin cancers etc. Special relativity also has similar applications e.g. all particle accelerators used to produce medical isotopes rely on it as well as those outside this field e.g. police radar.
No.
If you RTFA, the answer is also no.
Typical slashdot click-baiting. Feel like an idiot that I fell for it.
ROLL TIDE!!
Being that nearly all of that antimatter supposedly made by the Big Bang is missing, I would say that is a big yes, Sheldon! Oh wait, I know!!! Its hiding . . . in the oceans, you know, where all the global warming is hiding too!!! Yeah!
Yes. And all that antimatter created at the Big Bang, Its just hiding.
If a civilisation could create a Dyson sphere, don't you think they'd have some use for all the wasted energy "radiating in infrared"?
If they can get usable energy out of waste heat, they have a means of getting around the second law of thermodynamics. It's hard to guess what a technology with that much sophistication can do, but if they can do that, they don't need to surround a star with a shell to harvest energy.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Please check out Simon Singh's "The Big Bang Theory" book, much is explained
A few simple things - if space expands, the distance between any two objects in that space grows which can be measured a couple ways - farther objects are dimmer, the time it takes for light to travel between objects is greater.
As space expands it also leaves a fingerprint on any light that is in transit - the speed of that light doesn't change but the amount of energy it carries does. "Stretched" out light shifts toward red, and "Compressed" light is shifted blue. Because stars emit light with gaps - thanks to the atoms and electron shells in the gasses that they are made of - we know where these gaps should be. We observe these gaps moving around - toward red and we know it's moving away from us - toward blue and it's coming toward us.
Put these together and make a graph, we find that on average the farther away observed galaxies are (based on supernova "standard candles"), the faster they are moving away from us (more red shift).
We've found galaxy UDFy-38135539 has a red shift z=8.6, which means that the light it emitted is now eight times longer in wavelengths as it's reaching us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
If a civilisation could create a Dyson sphere, don't you think they'd have some use for all the wasted energy "radiating in infrared"?
If they can get usable energy out of waste heat, they have a means of getting around the second law of thermodynamics. It's hard to guess what a technology with that much sophistication can do, but if they can do that, they don't need to surround a star with a shell to harvest energy.
In one of Stross's novels, it's computonium, a material that absorbs energy and uses it as computational power. The sun is surrounded by successive layers of Dyson spheres with each outer layer absorbing the waste heat of the layer inside of it and radiates off increasing wavelengths of radiation. Subsequently, each outer layer runs at a slower rate than those father towards the interior and are the slums of the virtual society that exists inside all those layers of computonium.
There was no final epicycle that made the predictions right. On the other hand, if there's lots of matter that doesn't interact with anything electromagnetically, that would explain a lot of things nicely. It would explain galactic rotation curves. It would explain places where we have gravitational lensing without visible matter (consider the Bullet Cluster in particular). It would explain certain predictions of the Big Bang theory.
I have no idea why people have so much trouble with the idea. Basically, we're talking about something like slow, massive, neutrinos. That hardly seems exotic to me.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How if you RTFA that's linked the answer is obviously no, and why.
Huh. I guess I assumed too much. I read the summary as saying the complication of needing Dark Matter and Dark Energy were the wedges to invalidate the Big Bang theory. Are there that many people here who don't already know Dark Matter/Energy originated as fudge factors to make the Big Bang-based maths actually work with (some of the) problematic observations?
This is one of the biggest - no Duh moments in science. Junk science at its best. The whole notion that everything, and probably everyone reading this has absolutely no idea what everything even is, even a what a little piece of it is - came out of one point is just wrong. If I could let you look through a good telescope when it's say about 10F out and you can see what's out there, I mean really see what is out there and see that for all of these disks in random orientations out there consist of "countless" stars, planets and so on, the mass is well really really (repeat really about a billion billion times or so) big. Then to think that even say (what became) black holes came out of this - and escaped is clearly a violation of physics and time. I know, I know... - "IT'S THE BEST SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION THAT SCIENCE CAN COME UP WITH." Never the less, it's still wrong and they know it.
Dyson spheres would glow in the infrared and therefore be pretty obvious. This is because they still have to radiate the heat produced by the star they enclose - otherwise their internal temperature would perpetually increase.
Isn't that purely supposition?
No, it's pretty well tested. Just because you don't understand something does not mean that no one does. Compare to geometry: you might not know how to construct a given shape, but you can probably say something about its properties given a few conditions that it must satisfy.
For example, we know that relativity is an extremely accurate description of the geometry of spacetime. We have proved mathematically that energy must be conserved, in addition to observational evidence. That gives us the conditions that a Dyson Sphere must satisfy: it must exist in a universe with the same physics. However, even setting aside that requirement -- if your technology can break the laws of thermodynamics, why would you need a Dyson Sphere?
The next time you feel compelled to argue that your ignorance is as good as someone else's knowledge, may I suggest in lieu of posting here that you start a television or political career?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.