The Dark Energy Survey (DES) results start to come in.

[bornagainathiest]

http://news.fnal.gov/2017/08/dark-energy-survey-reveals-accurate-measurement-dark-matter-structure-universe/

 

I haven't been keeping tabs on this particular project (the Dark Energy Survey) but I'm always pleased to read news items like this.

I'm filing this article away for future use in debating Christians on the issue of the age of the universe.  I can use it to demonstrate the predictive power of modern cosmology.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

Just a pretty pic of spectacular galaxy.  (No dark energy or dark matter to see here.)

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, bornagainathiest said:

http://news.fnal.gov/2017/08/dark-energy-survey-reveals-accurate-measurement-dark-matter-structure-universe/

 

I haven't been keeping tabs on this particular project (the Dark Energy Survey) but I'm always pleased to read news items like this.

I'm filing this article away for future use in debating Christians on the issue of the age of the universe.  I can use it to demonstrate the predictive power of modern cosmology.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

Just a pretty pic of spectacular galaxy.  (No dark energy or dark matter to see here.)

 

Yes, it is an outstandingly beautiful galaxy from this perspective.  Looking at the link above they say that there is "no dark energy or dark matter to see here." Of course this is true. But IMHO there is no such thing as "dark energy or dark matter" period.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, it is an outstandingly beautiful galaxy from this perspective.  Looking at the link above they say that there is "no dark energy or dark matter to see here." Of course this is true. But IMHO there is no such thing as "dark energy or dark matter" period.

 

The terms are actually misnomers and are labels whose common meanings convey the wrong message of what they actually are. I've heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson say a more accurate name for dark matter is dark gravity because its not actually matter - its gravity that is unaccounted for. And I think that dark energy is better understood as an anti-gravity that instead of pulling matter together, pushes it apart. 

 

So I would say there is such a thing, just be careful on the understanding of what the labels mean.

 

BAA can probably put it better than I did since I'm mainly parroting NDT

[pantheory]

On 8/4/2017 at 8:37 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

The terms are actually misnomers and are labels whose common meanings convey the wrong message of what they actually are. I've heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson say a more accurate name for dark matter is dark gravity because its not actually matter - its gravity that is unaccounted for. And I think that dark energy is better understood as an anti-gravity that instead of pulling matter together, pushes it apart. 

 

So I would say there is such a thing, just be careful on the understanding of what the labels mean.

 

BAA can probably put it better than I did since I'm mainly parroting NDT

 

Thanks for that

 

What I am saying is that the conclusions of the existence of both dark matter and dark energy are mistakes of science IMHO. In my analysis of them there are other explanations for what is being observed other than dark matter and dark energy. Use a search engine for "no dark matter" and "no dark energy." Both are mainstream hypothesis but both have alternative explanations.  I and a co-author have written published scientific papers concerning both which you can find by this search as well as other published papers with explanations contrary to dark matter and dark energy, but different form my own.

[bornagainathiest]

I'd like to put some questions to you, please Pantheory.

 

You say that science is mistaken in it's conclusions of the existence of both dark matter and dark energy.

 

But, is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions as to where dark matter and dark energy are located in the universe?  

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about the ratio of dark matter and dark energy to ordinary matter and energy?

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about how dark matter and dark energy behave and interact with ordinary matter and energy?

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about how the properties of dark matter and dark energy evolve over time?

 

I ask, because if scientists are mistaken in these four ways, then how they can make their successful predictions about dark matter and dark energy?

 

“This result is beyond exciting,” said Scott Dodelson of Fermilab, one of the lead scientists on this result. “For the first time, we’re able to see the current structure of the universe with the same clarity that we can see its infancy, and we can follow the threads from one to the other, confirming many predictions along the way.”

 

Most notably, this result supports the theory that 26 percent of the universe is in the form of mysterious dark matter and that space is filled with an also-unseen dark energy, which is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe and makes up 70 percent.

 

“The DES measurements, when compared with the Planck map, support the simplest version of the dark matter/dark energy theory,” said Joe Zuntz, of the University of Edinburgh, who worked on the analysis. “The moment we realized that our measurement matched the Planck result within 7  percent was thrilling for the entire collaboration.”

 

Can you explain that for me, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[pantheory]

On 8/8/2017 at 6:46 AM, bornagainathiest said:

I'd like to put some questions to you, please Pantheory.

 

You say that science is mistaken in it's conclusions of the existence of both dark matter and dark energy.

 

But, is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions as to where dark matter and dark energy are located in the universe?  

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about the ratio of dark matter and dark energy to ordinary matter and energy?

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about how dark matter and dark energy behave and interact with ordinary matter and energy?

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about how the properties of dark matter and dark energy evolve over time?

 

I ask, because if scientists are mistaken in these four ways, then how they can make their successful predictions about dark matter and dark energy?

 

“This result is beyond exciting,” said Scott Dodelson of Fermilab, one of the lead scientists on this result. “For the first time, we’re able to see the current structure of the universe with the same clarity that we can see its infancy, and we can follow the threads from one to the other, confirming many predictions along the way.”

 

Most notably, this result supports the theory that 26 percent of the universe is in the form of mysterious dark matter and that space is filled with an also-unseen dark energy, which is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe and makes up 70 percent.

 

“The DES measurements, when compared with the Planck map, support the simplest version of the dark matter/dark energy theory,” said Joe Zuntz, of the University of Edinburgh, who worked on the analysis. “The moment we realized that our measurement matched the Planck result within 7  percent was thrilling for the entire collaboration.”

 

Can you explain that for me, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

"I'd like to put some questions to you, please Pantheory.

 

You say that science is mistaken in it's conclusions of the existence of both dark matter and dark energy."

 

Yes, I said that, but added IMHO. If one disagrees with mainstream ideas, opinions, theory, hypothesis, etc., although it is generally understood that it is an opinion, it is best to say IMO when there could be a question as to the source or validity of a statement.

 

"But, is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions as to where dark matter and dark energy are located in the universe?""

Yes, certainly IMO

 

"Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about the ratio of dark matter and dark energy to ordinary matter and energy?

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about how dark matter and dark energy behave and interact with ordinary matter and energy?

Is it equally mistaken in it's conclusions about how the properties of dark matter and dark energy evolve over time?"

 

Yes, of course. All explanations related to dark matter and dark energy are mistaken IMO like many other aspects concerning mainstream interpretations of reality.

 

"I ask, because if scientists are mistaken in these four ways, then how they can make their successful predictions about dark matter and dark energy?"

 

I would say in this case they are mistaken in two ways, their confidence in the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses in general. If they  are wrong about these hypotheses then everything else they say about them, as well as every related interpretation, will also be wrong. Of course a great deal  of effort, time, and money has been spent concerning both of these hypotheses. Hypothesis and related observations do not necessarily result in truths since there are almost always different explanations for what is being observed.

 

"Can you explain that for me, please?"

 

If both of these "dark" hypothesis are wrong then all interpretations that would result from them will be wrong. If one could not make predictions from these hypotheses they would not be mainstream.

 

For instance, the Big Bang model was very different just 40 years ago, and IMO it will be entirely replaced just 30 years from now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for your reply, Pantheory.

 

So am I right in thinking that the Pan particle can explain everything modern science is wrong about?

 

If the Pan particle is responsible for every phenomenon mainstream science attributes to other things (electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) then the Pan must surely be a kind of chameleon-like entity.  

 

That is, able to mimic every observed phenomenon, but only able to be realized for what it actually is by an alternative interpretation of those observations. 

 

Is that about right?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Thanks for your reply, Pantheory.

 

So am I right in thinking that the Pan particle can explain everything modern science is wrong about?

 

If the Pan particle is responsible for every phenomenon mainstream science attributes to other things (electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) then the Pan must surely be a kind of chameleon-like entity.  

 

That is, able to mimic every observed phenomenon, but only able to be realized for what it actually is by an alternative interpretation of those observations. 

 

Is that about right?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

"So am I right in thinking that the Pan particle can explain everything modern science is wrong about?"

 

The Pan particle would accordingly be part of a physical background field. In today's cosmology such a field is known to be the zero-point field. Hypothetically such additional fields are theorized to be the Higgs field as well as the dark energy field. The Higgs field is asserted to be associated with a particle, the Higgs particle. Dark energy is supposed to be a pure energy field not associated with a particle, according to the present model of it. As to my own model, there would be just one physical background field and particle not unlike some proposed models concerning the known zero-point field.

 

Generally the Pan particle is proposed to be a conceptually simple entity. The hypothesis concerning this particle is more related to the disciplines of the standard model of particle physics, quantum physics, cosmogony (the beginning of the universe) rather than cosmology.

 

"That is, able to mimic every observed phenomenon, but only able to be realized for what it actually is by an alternative interpretation of those observations."

 

Both scientific papers that I have written concerning dark energy and dark matter more relate to other details of the Pan Theory rather than to a fundamental particle. 

 

Unless someone proposes a thread inquiring about the Pan Theory itself, I will not discuss further details of it since such details would be off topic IMO.

 

Here are the links relating to the press release and paper proposing that dark energy probably does not exist.

 

http://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

"So am I right in thinking that the Pan particle can explain everything modern science is wrong about?"

 

The Pan particle would accordingly be part of a physical background field. In today's cosmology such a field is known to be the zero-point field. Hypothetically such additional fields are theorized to be the Higgs field as well as the dark energy field. The Higgs field is asserted to be associated with a particle, the Higgs particle. Dark energy is supposed to be a pure energy field not associated with a particle, according to the present model of it. As to my own model, there would be just one physical background field not unlike some proposed models concerning the known zero-point field.

 

Generally the Pan particle is proposed to be a conceptually simple entity. The hypothesis is more related to the fields of the standard model of particle physics, quantum physics, cosmogony (the beginnings of the universe) rather than cosmology.

 

Interesting.

You don't actually commit yourself on whether I am right, wrong, mistaken or anything to do with my thinking.  You say nothing about my thinking.  Which was what my question pertained to.  

 

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

"That is, able to mimic every observed phenomenon, but only able to be realized for what it actually is by an alternative interpretation of those observations."

 

Both scientific papers that I have written concerning dark energy and dark matter, more relate to other details of the Pan Theory rather than to a fundamental particle. 

 

Equally interesting.

You don't commit yourself on what may be right, wrong or mistaken about my thinking, even though my quoted sentence pertains to how I think about the Pan particle. 

 

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Unless someone proposes a thread inquiring about the Pan Theory itself, I will not discuss further details of it since such details would be off topic IMO.

 

Here are the links relating to the press release and paper proposing that dark energy probably does not exist.

 

http://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603

 

 

As the member who started this thread, I give you my full permission to discuss the Pan particle in this thread.

 

Would you please do so in the context of my questions, which pertain to my thinking.

 

Please inform me if I am right in thinking that the Pan particle can explain everything modern science is wrong about.

 

Please inform me if I am right in thinking that the Pan particle is able to mimic every observed phenomenon, but only able to be realized for what it actually is by an alternative interpretation of those observations.

 

Please comment only on my thinking about these two points and please do not include any other information about anything else.

 

Just my thinking about these two points.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

"So am I right in thinking that the Pan particle can explain everything modern science is wrong about?"

 

No, I think your question is too simplistic. The pan particle relates to a hypothesis called the Ipan Bead Hypothesis which more relates to cosmogony than cosmology. The Pan Theory itself relates to cosmology as well as all other aspects of modern physics

 

"If the Pan particle is responsible for every phenomenon mainstream science attributes to other things (electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) then the Pan must surely be a kind of chameleon-like entity. Is that about right?."

 

I believe a pan field is the same thing as the zero-point field whereby the zero-point field would physically consist of elementary particulates attached together in string-like coils.

 

"That is, able to mimic every observed phenomenon, but only able to be realized for what it actually is by an alternative interpretation of those observations."

 

There is more to the Pan Theory than an elementary particle or background-field theory. Much theoretical physics (mathematical) is needed to make predictions as well as supporting hypotheses. As you may recall the Pan Theory is 380 pages long. This is by far the longest single theory that I know of cocerning modern physics. This length of theory is unusual for both mainstream and alternative models.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you.