home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.physics.relativity      The theory of relativity      225,861 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 225,346 of 225,861   
   Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn to Ross Finlayson   
   Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because the   
   18 Jan 26 23:17:05   
   
   From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > I was interested in Krauss' book 'A Universe From Nothing' and   
   > it introduces some great ideas then though it's not very   
   > conclusive -   
      
   Maybe.  I have started reading the book, but did not have time to continue   
   with that yet.  The original talk, I think, is conclusive.  Although, as I   
   found out later, Krauss made a few questionable statements in it (e.g.,   
   there was never a "worst prediction in all of physics" regarding the Dark   
   Energy density, as my professor in General Relativity explained to us this   
   semester: It was never a well-founded assumption that the Dark Energy   
   density should be of the same order of magnitude as the Planck energy density).   
      
   > an example though that going through a given work   
   > isn't going to necessarily be a great work or magnum opus,   
   > yet as well both the commonalities and differences make for   
   > context.   
      
   Parse error.   
      
   > Here about that "dark matter is missing", it's "since the   
   > theory's been broken".   
      
   General relativity and the Lambda-CDM model are not broken; so far they work   
   very well.   
      
   By contrast, alternative theories so far like Modified Newtonian Dynamics   
   (MOND) theories do not actually work because by contrast to Dark Matter   
   they can only explain a subset of observations.   
      
   > According to the data since we're conscientious scientists.   
      
   That is a vacuous statement.   
      
   > Since both dark matter and dark energy hit five then six   
   > then seven sigmas - of statistical significance, it's no   
   > longer scientific to say that the data as it's interpreted   
   > matches the theory as it's interpreted.   
      
   It is a working theory.  That does not mean that it is the truth.   
      
   > Otherwise wouldn't they just be nothing at all?   
      
   That's a stupid question.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca