Evidence is not proof. Anyway, the only evidence for it is that it balances equations without having to find out why they didn’t work (too much time).
Yes, it’s a fact. (And this is why “No it’s not,” is not a valid argument without facts to back it up)
Have you ever looked it up in a science site?
In the early 1990s, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the universe had to slow. The universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.
Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein’s theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a “cosmological constant.” Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein’s theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don’t know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.
Note that one thing they can not consider is time.
And about the Oort cloud.
Like the Kuiper Belt and the Scattered Disc, the Oort Cloud is a reservoir of trans-Neptunian objects, though it is over a thousands times more distant from our Sun as these other two. The idea of a cloud of icy infinitesimals was first proposed in 1932 by Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik, who postulated that long-period comets originated in an orbiting cloud at the outermost edge of the Solar System.
In 1950, the concept was resurrected by Jan Oort, who independently hypothesized its existence to explain the behavior of long-term comets. Although it has not yet been proven through direct observation, the existence of the Oort Cloud is widely accepted in the scientific community.
It is the universe in general, and specifically the nebulae where stars are supposed to be born.
They have to imagine cold areas within them hidden by the lighted portions as in the link I gave.
The universe is getting hot, hot, hot, a new study suggests | ScienceDaily.
Nobody said anybody did. What a bizarre construction.
You claimed there was little, if any, evidence. That simply isn’t the case. If you want to reject the evidence that is your choice.
2 Likes
Cite where the universe is getting hotter.
There is nothing that can be shown to prove dark matter or energy exists. Like evolution, there are scientists who will use any coincidental data as evidence for their theories.
What coincidental data?
Prove to you? Probably not, given the depth of your science denial. Your adherence to dogmatic denial of scientific discoveries in no way makes those discoveries go away.
2 Likes
@Dale and @klax, as Liam pointed out, you already have at least one designated thread for your bickering. Please keep it there and stop producing large-scale derailments on other threads. Thank you.
Sure Laura, but how do you derail a train wreck?
This thread is probably played out, but some appear to be in the middle of more substantial discussions – let’s give it one more day for any additional opinions, and then it will be time to close it down.
1 Like
Ma’am, I wouldn’t dream of questioning a moderator’s decision. I was being puckishly rhetorical… cheeky. There are at least three first class minds here, mine not among them, being wasted with something else that still doesn’t quite pass the Turing Test. I congratulate the programmer nonetheless.
Put it this way. So far science has shown no way of validating dark matter other than it helps to make their theory’s equations balance without actually having to find out why they were wrong in the first place.
That simply isn’t true.
With the Bullet cluster they were able to use distortion of background galaxies to detect dark matter separately from luminous matter, and it had nothing to do with balancing out equations.
1 Like
NASA considers it possible, but no smoking gun proof of dark matter.
What’s the matter with the Bullet Cluster? This massive cluster of galaxies [1E 0657-558] creates gravitational lens distortions of background galaxies in a way that has been interpreted as strong evidence for the leading theory: that dark matter exists within. Different recent analyses, though, indicate that a less popular alternative – modifying gravity-- could explain cluster dynamics without dark matter, and provide a more likely progenitor scenario as well. Currently, the two scientific hypotheses are competing to explain the observations: it’s invisible matter versus amended gravity.
This is what you said before:
“So far science has shown no way of validating dark matter other than it helps to make their theory’s equations balance without actually having to find out why they were wrong in the first place.”
That’s false, as the data from the Bullet cluster shows. Ironically, you are trying to refute the evidence from the Bullet cluster by advocating for the rebalancing of equations.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 24 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.
It looks like you are conflating dark matter and dark energy. Learning the difference between those would be a good start, along with you trying really hard to understand why cosmologists reluctantly accepted dark matter over a period of several decades. Here is a good history of dark matter:
As far as the Oort cloud goes, starting with really trying to understand what we know about comet reservoirs and how we know what we know would be a good place to start. I can send a PDF of this review article if you (or others) are interested of just about everything we had figured out before 2015:
3 Likes