Slashdot Mirror
Supernovae May Not Be Standard Candles; Is Dark Energy All Wrong?
StartsWithABang writes: The accelerated expansion of the Universe — and hence, dark energy — was discovered by taking the well-understood phenomenon of type Ia supernovae and measuring them out to great distances. The results indicated that they were fainter than expected, and hence more distant, and hence the Universe's expansion must be accelerating. But new results have just come out, showing that supernovae may not be standard after all. Does this mean dark energy may not be real, or that it may just be slightly weaker than we previously thought?
Real scientists get very worried when they hear the term "scientific consensus". That kind of talk isn't scientific.
even the big bang theory, commonly accepted, was formulated by a belgian priest: it's basically genesis from the bible. someone stuck abrahamic religion in the middle of "science" and no one seems to question the shaky foundations.
Unlike politics where you need to reject ideas because it came from an opposing group, science doesn't care where the idea comes from if it works. The foundations of the Big Bang theory is not its history, but general relativity and the observations that back up things like the FLRW metric. History is only indirectly important in science, in that it is a great pedagogical tool for showing how an idea developed, why some ideas worked and why others failed, for teaching students the process.
Dark Energy is not a cheat, it is a placeholder. Assuming our measurements are correct, which the discussion of standard candles is challenging, some unknown source of energy is causing our Universe to expand, and that takes a lot of energy. It takes so much energy, that this energy needs to represent 80% of the Universe's total energy.
Unless you plan on challenging the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Do you know Deepak Chopra? I have a feeling you two would get along nicely.
Liberty.
the expansion we see is simply a local phenomenon ("local" being many billions of light years across) like the crest and trough of waves on the open ocean. the CBE is a phenomenon that happened a long time ago "locally", and delineates the edge of what we can see
that's just a theory
but it's no worse of a theory than the idea that there is a big bang that encompasses the entire universe, not just what we can see
why is the edge of what we can see = to the edge of everything, period?
proof? the "proof" is a residual prejudice from abrahamic religion in our recent history
i'm not a quack. i am well aware of the history of science and the quackery that has come and gone. i listed such quackery in my comment above
i ask you to conform rigidly to the scientific method and tell me why, with proof, that you are certain that the edge of what we can see = the edge of all that exists
you can't
i am asking you to accept this: it's a deficit of human ego to posit that all we know is all there is
if you are aware of the history of science, note that this is an assumption that has driven discarded beliefs and failed theories constantly overturned in the history of science, geography, and especially astronomy
based on that simple failure time and again in the history of science, i think it's pretty safe to say that the edge of what we know does not equal the edge of everything, period. the big bang is yet the latest iteration of this human weakness, this bias of ego, this assumption that has failed time and time again
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i am not saying the steady state theory is correct. i am saying we cannot say the big bang theory is authoritatively correct
everything about the big bang theory proves local expansion, not necessarily all expansion
i am simply saying that we have no proof that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
which has been a common fallacy throughout the history of science, especially astronomy. it's egocentrism, a simple common human weakness
can you tell me conclusively that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is?
you can't. you really can't. simply because we cannot peer beyond the CBE. that proves there is nothing beyond? there is no proof there IS something beyond. but there is no proof there isn't, either
i am not asking you to discard the big bang theory
i am not asking you to embrace the steady state theory
i am asking you to stop believing, falsely, that we have authoritative proof that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
that's being a quack?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The neutrino was in the same state for a while -- a hypothesized, unobserved entity needed to make the equations balance. Now we have three different neutrinos plus their antiparticles.
*I* am only asking that you use the Shift key on your keyboard every now and again!
If you want to be taken seriously you should really start with good sentence structure, proper paragraphs and punctuation. Your double spaced scrawling looks like the work of a child and you will be treated as such. All of this undermines your already eccentric views to the point where no one can take you seriously.
That link starts off interesting, and by about the 5th or 6th page becomes just polemic. You need to rewrite every page after the 1st, giving more attention to your theory and less attention to lambasting others.
I *am* of the opinion that when you do this you will end up with many fewer pages, but quite possibly with some decent questions that need to be addressed. E.g., how does your theory account for the proportions of Hydorgen and Helium in the universe. Etc. Don't concentrate quite so much on problems that current theories have trouble with, and pay more attention to deriving the solutions that the current theories have apparently valid answers for. Yes, you need to point out places where your theory is better, but it's even more important to show that you can answer correctly everything that the current theories have correct.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you are referring to Einstein, someone who grew up reading books by leading scientists, had a formal education in physics, and continued to keep up to date with theories and experiments and had connections to many people in the field, that is no longer just a "simple" patent clerk in this context. And that still doesn't explain why some such people show up in response to every related story.
Some of the posters here on Slashdot just keep copy-pasting statements with very little change or response to discussion. They also tend to reply only to easy to dismiss criticisms, like those that made an obvious reading comprehension fail or posts that are just insults/trolling or otherwise content free. But at the same time ignoring any detailed or serious replies (or ignoring 90% of such replies, going off on tangents), and never incorporate any suggestions or advice into their ideas.
They're not looking for discussion, they're just looking for validation or up mods from uninformed. If you post the same wrong stuff enough times on Slashdot, it inevitably gets modded up from time to time faster than it can get noticed by someone who can make a coherent counterpoint. Then sometimes momentum just means the comment stays modded up despite unmodded or down modded replies, regardless of how trivial it is to see the replies are right by looking at something as simple as a textbook.