|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Dark energy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I am soooo tempted to put a picture of Darth Vader on this article. Totnesmartin 14:06, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'd be tempted too, but you must resist the dark side of the force. ArmondikoVtheist 14:16, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- For some reason "dark energy" that is empty idea according to the Einsteinian physics got mixed with totally legitimate stuff as dark matter, which I plan to separate from. Anyone against, if yes, then state the reasons please. JimJast (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- YOu always amuse me, these arbitrary lines you draw. Both Dark Energy, and Dark Matter, as well as the new concepts Dark Flow and Dark Fluxuations are all theoretical. one is not dependent on the other, any more than they are dependent on modern physics in general. and to say "oh, DE is illegitimate, but DM is fine" is just silly. From an amature level, i'm quite dubious of all the Darks, as they can only be proven mathematically so they remain seriously theoretical in the lay person's sense of that word. but dismissing one, "just cause' is funny. usually, you sound like the kid who took one year of philo, and was so amazed by things philo discussed 500 years ago, you never get to the more advanced philos. cept, with physics.--
En attendant Godot 18:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- YOu always amuse me, these arbitrary lines you draw. Both Dark Energy, and Dark Matter, as well as the new concepts Dark Flow and Dark Fluxuations are all theoretical. one is not dependent on the other, any more than they are dependent on modern physics in general. and to say "oh, DE is illegitimate, but DM is fine" is just silly. From an amature level, i'm quite dubious of all the Darks, as they can only be proven mathematically so they remain seriously theoretical in the lay person's sense of that word. but dismissing one, "just cause' is funny. usually, you sound like the kid who took one year of philo, and was so amazed by things philo discussed 500 years ago, you never get to the more advanced philos. cept, with physics.--
- For some reason "dark energy" that is empty idea according to the Einsteinian physics got mixed with totally legitimate stuff as dark matter, which I plan to separate from. Anyone against, if yes, then state the reasons please. JimJast (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
National Geographic News claims the Most Direct Evidence of Dark Energy Detected and that is just one of many papers that JJ will have to understand and refute before he can seriously try to rewrite Cosmology. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- PC, I know I delete your stuff a lot and all, but that was very well put. I gotta be nice if I'm gonna be nasty. Well said. ħuman
06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- PC, I know I delete your stuff a lot and all, but that was very well put. I gotta be nice if I'm gonna be nasty. Well said. ħuman
- I'll be curious to see what Turok has to say about this. He's still rather unconvienced by Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - or rather, that the W-map is a map of this CMBR. His M-theory is different enough that it provides alternative reasons for the wmap. I love watching real science have real scientific challenges, unlike "creationists" with thier non scientific theories.:-) I just wish i understood more of it.--En attendant Godot 19:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added two links for reasders who want to know more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Again, thanks. ħuman 06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Again, thanks. ħuman
- I've added two links for reasders who want to know more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)