One scientist says the expansion of the universe can be explained without it. 

Now, I have to admit, the wording and math is lost on me. But, when scientists have competing ideas, those are long term settled with peer review. So for the eggheads out there, read this and tell me what you think. Is Dark Matter/Dark Energy simply a educated idea, but wrong?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...113013.htm

Here's a comment on the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder, who knows what she is.talking about bc. she works on quantum gravity

http://backreaction.blogspot.de/2017/11/...r.html?m=1

(December 7, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: Here's a comment on the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder, who knows what she is.talking about bc. she works on quantum gravity

http://backreaction.blogspot.de/2017/11/...r.html?m=1

That's an awesome link,  because Maeder is actively defending his(?) equations and they are going back and forth pretty vigorously, each claiming the other doesn't comprehend the salient mathematical principles underlying the issue.  Insulting cat memes incoming soon, methinks.

It is almost like a throwback to classic cosmology of the late 1800's. Both ways of thinking about the universe may be correct, and both may be wrong. They each have aspects of truth, but lack the right contexts.


Dark matter and dark energy are prototypes in theory of things which explain numerous anomolies in the universe, but it is the ill defined nature/physical properties of these elements that have left the door open to a lot of speculation.

One of the main obstacles in understanding the universe is the idea that what we call matter, by which, and in which we live, is at the top of the energy model, having the most significance in the universe.
But the theories of dark matter etc, are closer to the truth, that matter as we experience, is at the lower end of the scale in energy and significance. 
This suggests and can lead to the concept, that the universe is a product of greater energy which has been allowed to settle to a lower state.
The BB theory accounts for this in part, but it has assumed that there are no greater forces than those which operate within our material realm.
And for this reason amoung others, the BB theory is not plausible, and it rather should have been a Big Implosion if anything.

The idea that other forces, greater than gravity cause the movements and relations in the universe remains on track with the truth.

(December 23, 2017 at 10:09 am)Starhunter Wrote: It is almost like a throwback to classic cosmology of the late 1800's. Both ways of thinking about the universe may be correct, and both may be wrong. They each have aspects of truth, but lack the right contexts.


Dark matter and dark energy are prototypes in theory of things which explain numerous anomolies in the universe, but it is the ill defined nature/physical properties of these elements that have left the door open to a lot of speculation.

One of the main obstacles in understanding the universe is the idea that what we call matter, by which, and in which we live, is at the top of the energy model, having the most significance in the universe.
But the theories of dark matter etc, are closer to the truth, that matter as we experience, is at the lower end of the scale in energy and significance. 
This suggests and can lead to the concept, that the universe is a product of greater energy which has been allowed to settle to a lower state.
The BB theory accounts for this in part, but it has assumed that there are no greater forces than those which operate within our material realm.
And for this reason amoung others, the BB theory is not plausible, and it rather should have been a Big Implosion if anything.

The idea that other forces, greater than gravity cause the movements and relations in the universe remains on track with the truth.

Um no Star, a sky wizard is not required as a gap answer.

And just so you know, every religion pulls the same crap. When they cant flat out debunk science, they all try to get science to point to their club.

Google the following each separately and take note of all the link results.

"Muslim science" 
"Jewish science"
"Buddhist science"
"Hindu science"

What QM has yet to solve will not lead to a cosmic leprechaun and pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Humans make up religions because it gives them a false sense of comfort.

(December 23, 2017 at 1:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 23, 2017 at 10:09 am)Starhunter Wrote: It is almost like a throwback to classic cosmology of the late 1800's. Both ways of thinking about the universe may be correct, and both may be wrong. They each have aspects of truth, but lack the right contexts.


Dark matter and dark energy are prototypes in theory of things which explain numerous anomolies in the universe, but it is the ill defined nature/physical properties of these elements that have left the door open to a lot of speculation.

One of the main obstacles in understanding the universe is the idea that what we call matter, by which, and in which we live, is at the top of the energy model, having the most significance in the universe.
But the theories of dark matter etc, are closer to the truth, that matter as we experience, is at the lower end of the scale in energy and significance. 
This suggests and can lead to the concept, that the universe is a product of greater energy which has been allowed to settle to a lower state.
The BB theory accounts for this in part, but it has assumed that there are no greater forces than those which operate within our material realm.
And for this reason amoung others, the BB theory is not plausible, and it rather should have been a Big Implosion if anything.

The idea that other forces, greater than gravity cause the movements and relations in the universe remains on track with the truth.

Um no Star, a sky wizard is not required as a gap answer.

And just so you know, every religion pulls the same crap. When they cant flat out debunk science, they all try to get science to point to their club.

Google the following each separately and take note of all the link results.

"Muslim science" 
"Jewish science"
"Buddhist science"
"Hindu science"

What QM has yet to solve will not lead to a cosmic leprechaun and pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Humans make up religions because it gives them a false sense of comfort.

"Sky wizard" or any such reference is not written in my post, and neither is it inferred.

(December 7, 2017 at 7:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: Here's a comment on the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder, who knows what she is.talking about bc. she works on quantum gravity

http://backreaction.blogspot.de/2017/11/...r.html?m=1

That's an awesome link,  because Maeder is actively defending his(?) equations and they are going back and forth pretty vigorously, each claiming the other doesn't comprehend the salient mathematical principles underlying the issue.  Insulting cat memes incoming soon, methinks.

Seems like Maeder got owned by her. Exchange over.

(December 7, 2017 at 12:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: One scientist says the expansion of the universe can be explained without it. 

Now, I have to admit, the wording and math is lost on me. But, when scientists have competing ideas, those are long term settled with peer review. So for the eggheads out there, read this and tell me what you think. Is Dark Matter/Dark Energy simply a educated idea, but wrong?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...113013.htm

Yes, DM is total secret.

The Bible gives all the necessary clues as to what constitutes the background forces of matter, and how matter emerges from that background.

Discussing it is quite easy, provided there is open mindedness and a thorough knowledge of the operating principles within the universe.

"Magic book has all the answers"

Well shit boys, close up shop.  Ignorant goatherders had already figured out the cosmos.