Originally posted by @metal-brain If dark energy does not explain why the universe is expanding it sure does not explain why the expansion is accelerating. .
Clearly a false inference.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html
"...
The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion (i.e. more than countering the braking force of the mutual gravitational pull of the galaxies) is space itself, suggesting that perhaps it is not empty after all but contains some strange “dark energy”..."
The whole point of that theory is to explain that acceleration.
Whether that theory is true is an entirely different matter and already there has been some alternative theories proposed.
Lay off wikipedia.
No.
I will not lay off wiki nor any of the vast number of other science websites that shows you are wrong.
Why should I?
Originally posted by @humy Clearly a false inference.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html
"...
The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion (i.e. more than countering the braking force of the mutual gravitational pull of the galaxies) is space itself, suggesting that perhaps it is not empty after all but contains some strange “dark energy” ...[text shortened]... ki nor any of the vast number of other science websites that shows you are wrong.
Why should I?
The link you posted is flawed. I looked into Mordehai Milgrom and his theory is regarding dark matter, not dark energy as the link said. It explains nothing about why dark energy would cause acceleration.
It seems to me that the assertion that dark matter causes the expansion to accelerate is mere combining one theory to fit both without any explanation as to why it would.
My theory explains both nicely.
It seems to me that the assertion that dark matter causes the expansion to accelerate is mere combining one theory to fit both without any explanation as to why it would.
My theory explains both nicely.
The problem is your 'theory' is just conjecture unless you can come up with evidence and math that makes predictions about future events also. For that you need the math of the cosmologist and probably quantum mechanics also. So put it in that format, make some predictions that can be verified or not like Popper says, THEN it's science. For instance you say dark matter is black holes but do you know anything about the relationship between the mass of the black hole vs the lifespace of said black holes? Put that in your equations and see what happens. How much mass must be in each of your dark matter black holes and what is the range of mass of these black holes? Are they say a billion Kg each, a trillion Kg each? What mass do you assign the majority to?
Originally posted by @sonhouse The problem is your 'theory' is just conjecture unless you can come up with evidence and math that makes predictions about future events also. For that you need the math of the cosmologist and probably quantum mechanics also. So put it in that format, make some predictions that can be verified or not like Popper says, THEN it's science. For instance you sa ...[text shortened]... es? Are they say a billion Kg each, a trillion Kg each? What mass do you assign the majority to?
This is about dark energy theory, not dark matter.
Dark energy theory is just conjecture and nothing more. Everything you said about my theory applies to dark matter theory. Why the double standard?
Apply everything you said about my theory to dark energy theory and give me the answers to your own unreasonable standards. If you cannot do that it shows you have an unreasonable bias and double standard you should be ashamed of.
dark energy, if it exists, is not a science just like any physical entity is not a science. The theory of dark energy is a scientific theory since it is based on an observation and currently fully explains that observation and, providing an alternative opposing theory can be proven, it should even be falsifiable. Whether the theory is actually correct is an entirely different matter but that is not what determines whether a theory is a scientific theory.
Originally posted by @humy dark energy, if it exists, is not a science just like any physical entity is not a science. The theory of dark energy is a scientific theory since it is based on an observation and currently fully explains that observation and, providing an alternative opposing theory can be proven, it would be falsifiable. Whether the theory is correct is an entirely different matter.
Nobody even knows what dark energy is because we don't even know if it exists.
"providing an alternative opposing theory can be proven, it would be falsifiable."
Dark energy cannot be proven, yet you insist an alternative theory can. STUPID BULLCRAP!
Is dark energy falsifiable? Yet another unreasonable double standard! STUPID!!!!!!!
Let me know when you are willing to give up making crap up as you go along.
🙄
Originally posted by @metal-brain Nobody even knows what dark energy is because we don't even know if it exists.
"Nobody even knows what X is because we don't even know if X exists " is Clearly a false inference.
Example of that inference being false; let X be alien life; we do know what "alien life" is because we know what we mean by the words "alien" and "life" and still we "don't even know if it exists" thus not knowing if it exists doesn't logically entail us not knowing what it would be if it did exist.
Dark energy cannot be proven,
We don't yet know that because we haven't yet worked out if it makes any testable predictions. This is something often worked out only long after a theory was first made.
Is dark energy falsifiable? Yet another unreasonable double standard!
No, it being falsifiable is one of the properties making it scientific. That is just how science works.
Originally posted by @humy "Nobody even knows what X is because we don't even know if X exists " is Clearly a false inference.
Example of that inference being false; let X be alien life; we do know what "alien life" is because we know what we mean by the words "alien" and "life" and still we "don't even know if it exists" thus not knowing if it exists doesn't logically entail us not k ...[text shortened]... being falsifiable is one of the properties making it scientific. That is just how science works.
Nope. You do not know what alien life is. We know of the concept of alien life, but knowing if it is carbon based life or something else (silicon based for example) is impossible. How could you make any predictions of alien life if you don't even know what kind of life it is? Same thing with dark energy. You have a concept of dark matter but know nothing about it. Until then it is just a wild guessing game with know way of proving how it works since we don't know it even exists.
Dark matter is unprovable much like string theory is unprovable. It is a neat theory, but impossible to prove or disprove.
Why the double standard? Anybody can come up with a theory that is impossible to prove or disprove. The fact is dark energy theory is no better than time dilation theory. You are simply biased in favor of the most popular theory. A child could do that, even a retarded child.
how is empty space expanding?
24 Jul '17 17:055 edits
Back to Top