Dark energy?

[BlameTheEx]

Tormoid

 

My thanks for your correction. Predicts is better.

 

And you are right. It does not predict acceleration. As to not denying it, that is does not exactly save it. At best, you could now say it predicted part of the expansion. The very existence of the idea of Dark Energy is a denial that it can explain the acceleration part. A denial from a lot of eminent scientists. Is that not proof enough?

 

Please note that I was very careful to emphasise that I was talking about the BB theory AS IT STANDS. To me it seems as sensible to modify the BB theory, as add another, totally independent force.

[Tormod]

Thanks blame.

 

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

And you are right. It does not predict acceleration. As to not denying it, that is does not exactly save it.

 

I don't see why it needs to be saved from anything (it is a theory. If falsified - by verifiable proof - it will be gone).

 

At best, you could now say it predicted part of the expansion. The very existence of the idea of Dark Energy is a denial that it can explain the acceleration part. A denial from a lot of eminent scientists. Is that not proof enough?

 

Agreed, some big bang theories require that the universe expands. The acceleration, however, can be explained in many ways. I think you are turning your interpretation of things into a claim that others are in denial. That is projection, not evidence. (No offence - this is how I interpret your post).

 

Dark energy is ONE explanation for the expansion rate. It is not the only one. And it is not part of the standard big bang theory.

 

Please note that I was very careful to emphasise that I was talking about the BB theory AS IT STANDS. To me it seems as sensible to modify the BB theory, as add another, totally independent force.

 

I am very curious to what version of the BB theory you are using, and "how it stands". It might help me to understand your point.

[BlameTheEx]

Tormoid

 

We are much in agreement here. Dark Energy is only one option. Also I can only agree with you that there are many BB theories. However I have never heard of a version that predicted accelerating expansion, before it was observed. If there had been would it not have received more publicity? Perhaps there is one now, indeed I certainly hope so, but I have not read of wide scale acceptance of such, or indeed any mention at all.

 

There are BB theories that rely on an expansion of matter in a fixed universe, rather than an expanding universe, but they are not now mainstream. The problem with them is that it should be possible to locate the centre of the explosion, and there appears to be no centre.

 

To the best of my knowledge the BB theory, as it stands, works on the "surface of an expanding balloon" analogy. It is the direct cause of the linear component of expansion, and no other. There is the reasonable assumption that that expansion was subject to deceleration due to gravity, but I know of no evidence to support it.

 

As to claiming that others are in denial, I am not. Claims require proof, and all I have is suspicion, and a well developed cynicism. It did occur to me that Dark Energy was, well, rather more sexy than just modifying the BB theory.

[Freethinker]

So we conveniently go from an obvious outright attack on the BB based on an increase in the rate of expansion...

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

It seemed essential to salvage the Big Bang theory when the universes expansion was shown not to follow the script (the expansion appears to be speeding up). However I am not sure it can be called an explanation, more a matter of giving a name to our ignorance.

 

Personally, it feels like a fudge. As long as no convincing explanation comes up for Dark Energy, I reckon there is as good a case for rethinking the whole explanation for the observed expansion.

Thus you have attacked "the whole explanation for the observed expansion". AKA the BB. Claiming it is "essential to salvage the Big Bang theory".

 

Thus a CLAIM that the BB theory is in jepordy. You reinforce the CLAIM by selectively copying the ONLY negative quote in an OLD article

I am perhaps not alone in my doubts:

 

"This starts to look incredibly ugly and complicated," says Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute. "I even wonder if we are we asking right questions."

... to a rejection of your own original CLAIM

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

And you are right. It does not predict acceleration.

But you not only won't admit you have changed your stance, you want to go on with further unsupported claims. First you want to arbitrarily minimallize any factual support

At best, you could now say it predicted part of the expansion.

OK, WHICH part did it predict and WHICH PART didn't it?

 

Please give specific details, not random claims.

 

The very existence of the idea of Dark Energy is a denial that it can explain the acceleration part.

WHAT? Another reversal?

 

Attack

 

reverse

 

minimalize

 

attack again!

 

And the CLAIM is made AGAIN that Dark Energy somehow makes it "essential to salvage the Big Bang theory".

 

And the incredible list of proofs supplied for this claim?

A denial from a lot of eminent scientists. Is that not proof enough?

And that list of "eminent scientists" is....?

 

At best what you show us is your lack of understanding of how sicence works

Please note that I was very careful to emphasise that I was talking about the BB theory AS IT STANDS

In Science NOTHING is fixed "AS IT STANDS". NOTHING.

 

Only someone stuck in a theology of Revelation is fixed "AS IT STANDS".

 

Science is free to modify or reject completely because NOTHING is fixed "AS IT STANDS"

To me it seems as sensible to modify the BB theory, as add another, totally independent force.

And we continue to see how poor you are at being "sensible" when it comes to reasoning and logic. Trying once more to ignore Ockham's Razor.

 

So we are right back to the exact same question you are so desperate to ignore

 

Show us why Dark Energy is so harmful to the theory of the BB that it required being "salvaged".

 

and show us this list of "eminent scientists".

 

OPS, direct questions! Guess you'll just ignore this attempt to get FACTS from you.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

The BB theory, AS STANDS, results in no such acceleration, and that is no minor thing.

Blame, this is most certainly a claim which warrants proof.

CLAIMS? PROOF?

 

Blame does not deal with either. He CLAIMS to not make CLAIMS and NEVER supplies PROOF.

[BlameTheEx]

Yawn

[Freethinker]

Try staying awake long enough to think occasionally before posting!