Register to reply 
No need for dark energy , gravity will suffice. 
Share this thread: 
#73
Jun1809, 11:29 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,802

Then there's the simple argument that a mathematical structure is any structure which is strictlydefined and fully selfconsistent. Clearly the universe exists in one way and one way only, and is also selfconsistent, so it stands to reason that the universe is, at its heart, mathematical. Finally, when you stray away from using mathematics to describe the behavior of the universe, you invariably end up with ambiguities and inaccuracies. Plus you can't effectively work out what the consequences of statements about the universe are without mathematics. As a result, one cannot do science without mathematics. 


#74
Jun1809, 01:39 PM

P: 32

Reminds me of the old 'every logical or mathematical system is either incomplete or contradictory'.
Math is a minor player in science  a useful tool  similar to engineering or taking measurements. You have to have it, have to use it, but it is NOT the primary focus or goal. When the math fails the concept there are TWO possibles: 1) Bad concept 2) Bad math Before you give up on the concept its best to recheck the math  or even create a new one if needed. Math 'proves' nothing on its own. Might be interesting to some  even 'beautiful'  but that is a personal view that does not effect the science. Also, I don't see why the universe only has to exist in one way? Maybe only be perceived in one way at a time  again a viewpoint issue. 


#75
Jun1809, 09:51 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,802




#76
Jun1809, 10:54 PM

P: 32

Didn't say it wasn't useful ... only that the math is not the real point.



#77
Jun1809, 11:22 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,802




#78
Jun1809, 11:43 PM

P: 32

Again that has not been fully determined as yet in cosmology. Might just as well be leading us in entirely the wrong direction.



#79
Jun1909, 12:15 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,802




#80
Jun1909, 01:04 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,442

The fundamental evidence for dark energy came from the Perlmutter supernova study. See, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0309368



#81
Jun1909, 01:42 AM

P: 24

what is the meaning of the nost incomprihensive thing about the universe is that it is comprihensive give detail meanig of it



#82
Jun1909, 02:32 AM

P: 32




#83
Jun1909, 02:38 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,802




#84
Jun1909, 05:09 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,253

This kind of qausiconspiracy theory stuff is just nonsense. Have a look at cosmology preprints, here. You will find a very active field with all kinds of different new ideas looking at dark energy and ways to fit the data with all kinds of other theories. The idea that 'big science' is stuck on one idea that it refuses to let go of is simply not supported by the evidence of just looking at the variety of ideas being out there (and not simply ignored). Anyone working in cosmology would love to find a better theory than what we have at present, I gaurantee you that there is not a single person whose career would not benefit by overturning the current standard model of cosmology, which is why so many people are working so hard to do just that. The fact that the standard model has held up very well despite continued efforts to find problems with it just tells us that something about the model is very powerful, even if ultimately the physics behind it turn out to be rather different from what we currently suspect. On the other hand, Bad new ideas that are based on simple misconceptions and don't consider the totality of the evidence available are, of course, ignored. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lively and open debate going on with regards to genuinely interesting alternatives. 


#85
Jun1909, 09:46 AM

P: 32

Actually, all you can say for any model is whether it matches data or not. The importance of an 'accepted' model is that it determines what will be used for further work ... grants, money, careers, promotions, etc. So if you are 'in the business' you have to use the accepted approaches.



#86
Jun1909, 09:58 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,253

You can rant all you like, but the fact is that well posed alternative explanations get a fair hearing. The whole dark energy idea was once 'alternative', as were other elements you could now call 'standard'. If an alternative theory works it will become the standard. Nobody has any interest or anything to gain by preventing that. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Wiltshire casts doubt on existence of dark energy  Beyond the Standard Model  1  
Dark Energy Telescope gets the goahead from NASA  Cosmology  0  
Relativity and the Dark Energy question  Special & General Relativity  5  
Dark Matter And Dark Energy May Be Different Aspects Of A Single Unknown Force  General Physics  0 