Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:15:43 UTC No. 16434710

>>16434703
Yes. Experimentally, redshift from type Ia supernovae, which function as standard candles, indicated a small but non-zero cosmological constant. Theoretically, you expect the cosmological constant as it's just the constant term in the action which becomes non-trivial in general relativity due to the integral measure containing the metric.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:25:13 UTC No. 16434744

You mean apart from the unexpected observations that were given the place-holder name of 'dark energy'? It's not like they make it up for shits and giggles.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:29:51 UTC No. 16434754

>>16434744
>the cosmological constant has been known since the inception of general relativity
>assumed nearly close to zero due to observations
>more accurate astronomical observations indicate it’s very small but non-zero
>astronomers invent a dumb new quirky name “dark energy” to hype their grant proposals to normalfags and the government
>astronomers always start their talk with how le mysterious this well-known parameter of general relativity is because they themselves barely passed GR in grad school and can’t remember shit
>normalfags eat it up and parrot that dumb shit
please consult the following
https://youtu.be/fi3GZz4vWdo

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 01:32:05 UTC No. 16435596

>>16434703
No. Simply allowing the gravitational constant to vary would solve it without needing magic unseeable "matter"

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 01:32:50 UTC No. 16435597

>>16434703
we got too cocky with our math gimmick

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:43:08 UTC No. 16435645

>>16434744
This.
>>16434754
You're a retard.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:34:53 UTC No. 16435685

Yes, if you accept higher dimensions
>t. string theorist

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:14:00 UTC No. 16437271

>>16434703
none whatsoever

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 05:48:28 UTC No. 16437473

>>16434710
To this I'd add the observed versus predicted rotations of galaxies, and gravitational lensing at cosmological distances, which is way out of line from observations of baryonic or ordinary matter closer by.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 06:27:32 UTC No. 16437495

>>16437473
Problem.

How do you know that the 80 bits of data from that point of light 400 million LY distant is actually what you assume it is?

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:53:12 UTC No. 16440050

>>16434703
yeah

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 03:08:04 UTC No. 16440707

>>16434703
Ask Daniel McKeown or any other unemployed homeless dude

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 03:13:17 UTC No. 16440710

>>16434703
it's basically guaranteed that standard cosmology is wrong but we're not at a point where a better solution has become apparent.
so for now we interpret observations through that lens. and in that way there is plenty of evidence.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:01:19 UTC No. 16441920

>>16440710
>but we're not at a point where a better solution is automatically disregarded by academia because they don't want to admit their current model is fallacious

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:55:10 UTC No. 16442348

>>16434703
YOUR COSMOLOGY REQUIRES AN ALL POWERFUL SPOOKY GHOST! MINE ONLY REQUIRES 95 PARTS IN 100 SPOOKY GHOST!

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:57:18 UTC No. 16442349

>>16437473
That's dark matter, not "dark energy" aka the cosmological constant. I want to personally strangle all astrolets who came up with these stupid fucking terms that normalfags constantly confuse.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:58:29 UTC No. 16442350

>>16442349
dark magic and dark zenith are also involved.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:59:44 UTC No. 16442353

>>16442350
Draw the 4 part pattern:

Dark metal Dark energy Dark magic Dark zenith

It's a square pattern, becoming more and more incontaminate.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:03:54 UTC No. 16442355

>>16442353
There are things like mini, dead, anti, edur, etc. all the 4 letter words to be extracted from the terms hydro and hyded. All accord to the same metal energy magic zenith.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:26:14 UTC No. 16442367

Soul is more upper than dark and anti.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:31:30 UTC No. 16442369

Yes, dark energy exists. There's lots of hydro in the background of this universe. Yes, scientists are making a correct observation - the dark energy they claim is there, is there. It's a surreal-ion state, so there's a hydro layer.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:54:54 UTC No. 16442473

>>16434754
>has been known since the inception of GR
It's was inserted for philosophical fine tuning reasons to make GR behave in a steady state universe, that turned out to be wrong and was embarrassingly withdrawn for 50 years, then retrieved because it may explain the observed unexpected acceleration of expansion.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:58:49 UTC No. 16442474

>>16442473
>may explain
already does. What do you think Lambda in Lambda-CDM stands for?

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:15:43 UTC No. 16442565

>>16434754
>>astronomers invent a dumb new quirky name “dark energy” to hype their grant proposals to normalfags and the government
The reason for giving it a vague name was to avoid just making the assumption that it must be Lambda. It's the simplest model, but the universe is under no requirement to obey such expectations. And until particle theorists reconcile the value with the vacuum energy, there is a big motivation to explore alternatives. GR itself has really only been tested the Solar System scales, does it actually hold on orders of magnitude large scale? I don't know, you don't know, Rovelli doesn't know. There is nothing scientific about assuming your first guess must be correct.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 18:59:03 UTC No. 16442919

>>16442565
>And until particle theorists reconcile the value with the vacuum energy
See attached video. Lambda is the vacuum energy. The only job of QFT is to provide corrections to it. This is like asking particles physicists to derive the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs. We don’t. It’s just a parameter of the model.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:49:51 UTC No. 16443727

>>16442919
>The only job of QFT is to provide corrections to it.
That's a big understatement, trying to correct a mismatch of over 100 orders of magnitude.
And you ignored everything else I said. There is nothing scientific about assuming this is definitely Lambda.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:57:22 UTC No. 16443733

>>16443727
There’s no mismatch. Yes, the corrections are small compared to the lowest-order value. Just like all the other loop corrections. Go back to the video. It explains this.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:09:10 UTC No. 16443743

>>16443733
There is a huge, famous, mismatch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:34:52 UTC No. 16443755

>>16443743
And that UGE Famous (tm) mismatch is bullshit.
>and many theorists consider this ad-hoc constant as equivalent to ignoring the problem.[1]
Those “many theorists” are stringniggers who should also have a problem with literally every SM parameter. The same stringniggers who have been promising derivations of these parameters for 40 years, but haven’t delivered. Normal people just admit that we can’t predict them and they’re just empirical parameters.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:56:25 UTC No. 16443760

>>16443755
>Normal people just admit that we can’t predict them and they’re just empirical parameters.
So when you said "Lambda is the vacuum energy", you were just guessing?
And if it's just an empirical constant with no physical meaning then there is no reason to assume dark energy must take the form of Lambda. You continue to ignore the point that there is nothing scientific about assuming the universe must match your own prejudice.
>The same stringniggers who have been promising derivations of these parameters for 40 years, but haven’t delivered.
All the more reason to explore alternatives to Lambda.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:09:46 UTC No. 16443776

>>16443760
>So when you said "Lambda is the vacuum energy", you were just guessing?
No. It’s just semantics. It acts as a constant contribution to the stress-energy tensor without requiring a matter term. So we call it vacuum energy density.
>And if it's just an empirical constant with no physical meaning
Never said it had no physical meaning. I just explained the meaning.
>then there is no reason to assume dark energy must take the form of Lambda
literal semantics. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
>You continue to ignore the point that there is nothing scientific about assuming the universe must match your own prejudice
Semantics is not prejudice. It’s the fucking definitions. Show me that the observations don’t match the behavior predicted by GR and then we’ll talk.
>alternatives to Lambda
there are literally none because it’s just a constant term in the action. There’s only one such term; if there are two they add up to give a single number.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:08:52 UTC No. 16443846

>>16443776
>No. It’s just semantics. It acts as a constant contribution to the stress-energy tensor without requiring a matter term. So we call it vacuum energy density.
No, you've just regurgitated the definition of Lambda. The whole idea of a vacuum energy comes from particle physics.
>then there is no reason to assume dark energy must take the form of Lambda
literal semantics. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Have all those things been measured? No. You are saying because it swims, therefore it is a duck. What if it is a fish, or a cow? You seem to be repulsed by the idea of testing the hypothesis.
>Semantics is not prejudice. It’s the fucking definitions.
Assuming it must be Lambda is prejudice.
>Show me that the observations don’t match the behavior predicted by GR and then we’ll talk.
So now you finally admit that we need to go and test the model observationally. There is no point in doing so if you know dark energy is really Lambda. But you don't.
>there are literally none...
Wrong. There is the entire field of modified gravity. There are dozens of models. They do not have to just be constants.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:12:01 UTC No. 16443848

>>16443846
>The whole idea of a vacuum energy comes from particle physics.
So the vacuum doesn't exist in GR? We don't look at vacuum solutions? Are you retarded?
>Have all those things been measured? No.
Yes. Supernovae redshift observations.
>There is no point in doing so if you know dark energy is really Lambda.
"There is no point in measuring forces if you know force is really F"
>There is the entire field of modified gravity.
Ok, nigger, then please tell me how any of these match observations better than GR.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:32:49 UTC No. 16443861

>>16443848
So can you calculate the vacuum energy density from pure GR then?
>Yes. Supernovae redshift observations.
Nope. They show there is apparent acceleration, that does not prove it is Lambda.
>>There is no point in doing so if you know dark energy is really Lambda.
>"There is no point in measuring forces if you know force is really F"
Try replying to the actual argument instead of these moronic analogies.
>Ok, nigger, then please tell me how any of these match observations better than GR.
Not what I said. Try reading.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:37:23 UTC No. 16443865

>>16443861
>So can you calculate the vacuum energy density from pure GR then?
You can’t. Just like you can’t calculate the gravitational constant.
>They show there is apparent acceleration, that does not prove it is Lambda
It does. The stress-energy tensor must be positive. It cannot produce acceleration.

EBOK at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:40:04 UTC No. 16443867

I'm bored of these two equally stupid nerds arguing. Say something good that makes sense and stop distracting everyone and your own minds.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:55:00 UTC No. 16443881

>>16443865
>You can’t. Just like you can’t calculate the gravitational constant.
So saying "it's just the vacuum potential of GR" is completely worthless. If Lambda is the vacuum potential then it must be theoretically reconciled with the expectation from particle physics.
>The stress-energy tensor must be positive.
And why are you assuming GR must be correct?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:06:23 UTC No. 16443888

>>16443881
>So saying "it's just the vacuum potential of GR" is completely worthless.
Why? Is GR a worthless theory? Is the Standard Model a worthless theory? You start with parameters and make predictions. What do you want, to start with no parameters? Even stringfags have a parameter, the Planck scale.
>If Lambda is the vacuum potential then it must be theoretically reconciled with the expectation from particle physics.
I reiterate. The Standard Model doesn't include gravity. We don't have a satisfactory quantum gravity model. Stringniggers claim that they do, but then they give you these "expectations" that don't match reality. Did you know that they had also expected the negative cosmological constant before it was observed to be positive? Did you know that they had told us we'd see "large extra dimensions" at the LHC when none were observed?
>And why are you assuming GR must be correct?
I am not. If you want to talk in the context of a different theory, then please both provide a concrete model and a justification for its introduction in the form of disagreements of observations with GR. I need something concrete to talk about and not just some nebulous "alternatives".

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:21:51 UTC No. 16443894

>>16443888
>Why? Is GR a worthless theory? Is the Standard Model a worthless theory? You start with parameters and make predictions. What do you want, to start with no parameters? Even stringfags have a parameter, the Planck scale.
The problem that it's another parameter, the problem is the conflict with PP.
>The Standard Model doesn't include gravity. We don't have a satisfactory quantum gravity model. Stringniggers claim that they do, but then they give you these "expectations" that don't match reality. Did you know that they had also expected the negative cosmological constant before it was observed to be positive? Did you know that they had told us we'd see "large extra dimensions" at the LHC when none were observed?
Yes quantum gravity may solve it, but it's incredibly unlikely that this extra physics will very precisely cancel the value down by 100 orders of magnitude. Could be true, but requires ridiculous fine tuning from today's perspective. It could also cancel to zero by some symmetry, leaving a zero cosmological constant.
And it doesn't come from string theory .
>I am not.
Then your logic that it must be Lambda doesn't hold. You cited the Einstein equation, which is specific to GR.
And you can go educate yourself on alternatives, no specific model is part of my argument.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:27:37 UTC No. 16443905

>>16443894
> the problem is the conflict with PP
how the fuck is it in conflict with something that doesn’t include it? Can you read? The Standard Model doesn’t include gravity. And even if it did, all vanilla QFT could ever provide to its value is corrections similar to fine-structure constant corrections. The only theory I’m aware of that makes any claim to derive these parameters is string theory and it’s a giant unfalsifiable clusterfuck in its current state.
>Then your logic that it must be Lambda doesn't hold
It holds within the context of GR. If you want to be such an anal sceptic about it, then no scientific theory holds because there’s never a guarantee that future measurements won’t match it. Happy?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:13:53 UTC No. 16443937

>>16443905
>how the fuck is it in conflict with something that doesn’t include it? Can you read? The Standard Model doesn’t include gravity. And even if it did, all vanilla QFT could ever provide to its value is corrections similar to fine-structure constant corrections. The only theory I’m aware of that makes any claim to derive these parameters is string theory and it’s a giant unfalsifiable clusterfuck in its current state.
You yourself said it is the vacuum energy. I'd say it's a big fucking mystery that that value doesn't agree with the rest of physics.
>It holds within the context of GR.
Funny, when I pointed this out several posts ago, you denied it. What a waste of time.
>If you want to be such an anal sceptic about it, then no scientific theory holds because there’s never a guarantee that future measurements won’t match it. Happy?
Correct. Hence the need to actually obtain new observations to test the model, rather than just assuming your first guess is the correct one.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:46:13 UTC No. 16443980

Redshift isn't real, all fruit of the poison tree. Deep space is so data starved you are literally faggots chained to a cave floor trying to interpret shadows on the wall made by some dick head with puppets meanwhile the real data is outside the cave where you will never go and you will never even know "outside the cave" is an option. No you all stay chained to the cave floor, spending your lived debating what shapes the shadows really look like. Sad, countless such cases.
>>16434710
>>16434744
>Some say that redshift cosmology is wrong because redshift has been misinterpreted as a Doppler effect for over a century. This misinterpretation is said to be a fundamental cosmological error that has led to flawed hypotheses about the universe, including the big bang theory, expansion theory, Hubble's law, dark matter, and dark energy

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:01:00 UTC No. 16443992

>>16434754
You're confused. The cosmological constant was assumed constant or decreasing. Dark energy is the observation that it's increasing over time. It's unclear why or how

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:50:48 UTC No. 16444053

>>16443937
I repeat myself once again. Vacuum isn’t a quantum mechanical concept. It’s the trivial representation of the isometry group of a (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold. A purely relativistic notion.
>Funny, when I pointed this out several posts ago, you denied it
I never did. Nice reading comprehension.
>Hence the need to actually obtain new observations to test the model
Then please, go ahead. Find something that disagrees with GR. We theorists have been itching for it for decades. I’m waiting.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:52:29 UTC No. 16444055

>>16443992
It was only assumed negative by string theorists because it would have made their bullshit easier. And it’s constant, not increasing. It produces acceleration, but it’s still a constant.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:29:30 UTC No. 16444091

What are the units of the cosmological constant? Note that I'm not asking for the dimension; I'm asking for the units. I know it's dimension is m^-2, but that's not helpful. Let me demonstrate with an example with the hubble constant
>Units of (km/s) / Mparsec
>Dimensions of 1/s
They're different, and the dimensions is technically correct but gives no insight into what it physically represents (velocity/distance)

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:35:47 UTC No. 16444095

>>16444053
Vacuum energy is not exclusive to GR. Doing some mental gymnastics to pretend that the CC problem doesn't exist.
>Then please, go ahead. Find something that disagrees with GR.
Can't do that without doing new observations. No point in doing observations if you know the answer. Hence calling it dark energy instead of assuming it's Lambda.
There is some tentative evidence in the latest DESI results for deviations from LCDM, and the Hubble tension, and the sigma 8 tension.
>I never did.
Wrong: >>16443888
>We theorists have been itching for it for decades. I’m waiting.
And yet here you are claiming there is no point testing anything else, because you already know the answer.
And while you're "waiting", maybe you theorists could make actually some progress on gravity. Because you know, it's been a century.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:38:31 UTC No. 16444099

>>16443992
You are confusing the Hubble constant with the cosmological constant. The Hubble constant is the present day rate of expansion, this rate is not actually constant in time (the Hubble parameter). The cosmological constant is the standard model explanation for the acceleration of expansion, it doesn't need to vary.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:45:22 UTC No. 16444111

>>16444053
>Then please, go ahead. Find something that disagrees with GR. We theorists have been itching for it for decades. I’m waiting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_diffuse_galaxy
I'm itching to see what you do with it. Let me guess. More gauges?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:57:01 UTC No. 16444128

>>16443980
>Deep space is so data starved you are literally faggots chained to a cave floor trying to interpret shadows
Oh yeah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence we have measured over 10 million galaxies with positive redsihfts, and fewer than 100 with blueshifts. What cope.
And you can literally measure some of these yourself, pic related is an amateur spectrum of a quasar, where you can measure it's redshift.
>Some say that redshift cosmology is wrong because redshift has been misinterpreted as a Doppler effect for over a century.
You know why people are so settled on expansion? Because every other alternative proposed has been observationally ruled out.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:58:29 UTC No. 16444131

>>16444128
Pic

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:10:43 UTC No. 16444145

>>16444111
I have responded to this before. Nice try.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:12:10 UTC No. 16444147

>>16444145
Where?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:28:46 UTC No. 16444164

>>16444147
Don't play dumb. Tell me exactly how these ultra diffuse galaxies don't obey EFEs.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:53:24 UTC No. 16444190

>>16444095
The way we measure le dark energy is via GR predictions, ie the metric via redshift. Calling it something that has nothing to do with GR is either extremely retarded or disingenuous when that's the theory used to measure it.
>There is some tentative evidence in the latest DESI results for deviations from LCDM, and the Hubble tension, and the sigma 8 tension.
Great, so there are deviations from Lamba-CDM and not the underlying theory of GR. Perhaps consider modifying your model first before claiming that GR is wrong. Lambda-CDM isn't the only boundary problem in GR.

There are plenty of direct and more precise tests of general relativity that don't rely on a ton of other degrees of freedom like how many neutrinos there are etc. All of them have not shown statistically significant deviations.

As always, astronomers don't want to admit that their dirty lab has dorito dust all over that they can't account for, so they claim it's not the dorito dust that's the culprit but our theories that don't magically include all that trash they have to filter out of measurements.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:11:33 UTC No. 16444213

>>16444131
cope

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:37:31 UTC No. 16444257

>>16444190
>>16444190
>Great, so there are deviations from Lamba-CDM and not the underlying theory of GR. Perhaps consider modifying your model first before claiming that GR is wrong. Lambda-CDM isn't the only boundary problem in GR.
Did I say they were? No.
This is funny. You decided with absolute certainty that Lambda is non-zero. You apparently ignored the fact that the measurement is entirely model dependant, only valid under LCDM. Now you complain that tests of GR are model dependant. Quite the hypocrisy.

>There are plenty of direct and more precise tests of general relativity that don't rely on a ton of other degrees of freedom like how many neutrinos there are etc. All of them have not shown statistically significant deviations.
None of them are sensitive to anything like the scales proved by cosmology. Good luck measuring Lambda with Solar System tests.

>As always, astronomers don't want to admit that their dirty lab has dorito dust all over that they can't account for, so they claim it's not the dorito dust that's the culprit but our theories that don't magically include all that trash they have to filter out of measurements.
Which is why it's a good idea to not jump to conclusions, like assuming that dark energy must be Lambda.

EBOK at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:41:10 UTC No. 16444262

Nerdfight

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:03:37 UTC No. 16444278

>>16444164
>EFE
Huh, I thought we were talking about GR

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:19:24 UTC No. 16444291

>>16444278
They clearly mean the Einstein Field Equations, not the external field effect.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:52:45 UTC No. 16444327

>>16444278
kek pseud outed

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:58:07 UTC No. 16444337

>>16444257
I’m tired of this conversation. You are accusing me of things I haven’t said like
> You decided with absolute certainty that Lambda is non-zero
and then you go into non-sequiturs. I can’t tell if you’re genuinely retarded or just trolling. Adios, bitch.

EBOK at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:04:08 UTC No. 16444346

>>16444337
Now that the nerd fight is over we can start actually reading posts here again

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:05:12 UTC No. 16444349

>>16444337
Since you don't remember:
>more accurate astronomical observations indicate it’s very small but non-zero
Literally one of the first things you said. No mention of model dependence or alternative models.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:09:22 UTC No. 16444357

>>16444349
did you read the line before that, mushbrain?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:35:07 UTC No. 16444384

>>16444099
>The Hubble constant is the present day rate of expansion
as measured from the earth rest frame in dense contracting galactic space which is extremely atypical as compared to the rest of the universe. most of the matter in the universe is in expanding space if you believe the values of hubble constant measured from earth

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:39:48 UTC No. 16444589

A black hole under the influence of an expanding metric grows in radius, since the black hole is a hole in the metric itself. A black holes mass is dependent on its radius (not vice versa). As the black hole grows in size, its mass increases which must be balanced by the black hole leaking out excess mass-energy. This leaked energy is dark energy. This also implies the bigger the black hole, the earlier it formed. This is why galaxies have super massive black holes at their centers, since primordial black holes began tiny, expanded in size and accreted neighboring matter. Small black holes should be observed between galaxies and within galactic edges (where there is sparse matter) which generates dark matter. The amount of dark matter in the universe can be utilized to determine the number of black holes inside galaxies, which is why some galaxies have no dark matter and some have a lot of dark matter. This can be accounted for by calculating via probabilities how likely a black hole is to form in unoccupied space. If such a calculation exists, then you can predict the frequency of galaxies with anomalous rotation curves (and match to observation). Screenshot this post for 15 years from now when cosmologists finally catch on. Just last year the idea was proposed in the arxiv that black holes leak dark energy via the expansion of space.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:20:40 UTC No. 16446689

>>16444589
>black holes

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:15:40 UTC No. 16446736

>>16444190
>all that trash they have to filter out of measurements.
How many babies might be in that bathwater

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:53:03 UTC No. 16446893

>>16446689
Not an argument

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:56:37 UTC No. 16446915

If as seen on tv, it moves through normal matter (like the planet) freely, going through it, as if it were not there. Kind of like permeating it.. I do not know, that was a really long time ago.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:28:36 UTC No. 16447946

dark matter exists, but it doesn't have any mass

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:26:01 UTC No. 16448075

>>16444589
!remindme 8.78e+51 planck time units

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:27:44 UTC No. 16448157

>>16448075
Planck mass is about one grain of sand. Why can't physicists direct strings in sand

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:56:23 UTC No. 16448210

>>16444128
>>16444131
Pure cope and I know enough about deep space astronomy to know it's pure cope. Like all NPC losers you claim everything is "settled" but all that means is you've bullied everyone into saying what you say and have no proof of anything you claim. No proof at all. You can not claim something makes up the vast majority of The Universe and it's also completely undetectable and nothing in our reality can interact with it. You are all insane people chasing none sense that doesn't exist. I won't enable your delusions. You're all wrong, you're all stupid, BASTA!

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:21:03 UTC No. 16448438

>>16443848
Accelerated expansion is a product of assuming light that reaches the observer doesn't lose energy in any way along the path.
It's a juvenile reasoning that lacks evidence.
How do you know a photon hasn't passed through a trillion hydrogen atoms without physically interacting with the constituent particles but perturbing the EM fields of the particles in a way that shifts the energy balance between the two.
You don't. Nobody does.

Observer meet the observed, and such.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:26:28 UTC No. 16448479

>>16444128
>You know why people are so settled on expansion? Because every other alternative proposed has been observationally ruled out.
You can have expansion *and* a misinterpreted redshift simultaneously.
It's called a White Hole.
Objects redshift as they approach the event horizon.
Not saying the Observable Universe is a White Hole.
But the fact that the Observable Universe lies within its Swarzchild Radius suggests something wonky is afoot. (Is it a Black Hole? Or a White Hole?)

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:39:00 UTC No. 16448495

>>16448479
>>16444128
To explain my hypothesis as to what's really going on here: spacetime is curved, and this is all an artifact of that. Maybe the Observable universe is a spheroid?
Maybe all the antimatter is on the other hemisphere beyond an event horizon? (explains matter-antimatter asymmetry).

Furthermore, Gravitational Lensing of "Dark Matter" might just be the fact that spacetime isn't as smooth as we think it is. Perhaps there is no matter actually there, but still hills in spacetime.
Imagine you had a standing gravitational wave. That would behave exactly like dark matter. Obviously gravitational waves are generally far to low energy for that to explain the phenomenon, but in the absence of a direct detection of Dark Matter (e.g. WIMPs) the idea of standing disturbances in spacetime without matter should be explored.

>but we haven't observed curved spacetime! it looks smooth in empty space!
The Milky Way is in the largest void in the Observable Universe. So I would take local measurements with a grain of salt.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:24:31 UTC No. 16448609

>>16448438
>How do you know a photon hasn't passed through a trillion hydrogen atoms without physically interacting with the constituent particles but perturbing the EM fields of the particles in a way that shifts the energy balance between the two.
Because hydrogen atoms absorb specific wavelengths of light, not all frequencies. The neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium leaves strong absorption lines in the Lyman alpha forest. It is only detectable because hydrogen atoms only absorb photons at specific rest wavelengths corresponding to electronic transitions.
Redshift is constant across all wavelengths, unlike any scattering or absorption process. There are zero known or theorized processes which could cause redshift without deflecting the light in angle, which would blur the images of distant sources.
Lastly there is independent evidence of expansion, in the observations of time dilation in proportion to redshift. Tired light models can have no such effect.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:56:18 UTC No. 16448631

>>16434703
Dark energy is just caused by the compounding error of our simulated universe only approximately behaving like the laws of physics say it should.
This causes orbits all over the universe to expand over time including that of the solar system.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:07:35 UTC No. 16448641

>>16448609
Consider a bowling ball rolling towad you, that has 40 holes/tubes in it, that spray out water.

When a galaxy emits light, well first of all it's many sources spinning many ways? Could there be some whipping effect, where tumbling stars shot light that has momentum other than directly straight?

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:15:32 UTC No. 16448881

>>16448609
What I said has nothing to do with the absorption frequency of hydrogen.
How do you know light does not lose spectral energy to any effect in any scenario.
For that matter how do you know that the apparent observation at such grand distances is correct.

You don't!

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:52:16 UTC No. 16448957

>>16448881
>How do you know light does not lose spectral energy to any effect in any scenario.
As I said:
Redshift is constant across all wavelengths, unlike any scattering or absorption process. There are zero known or theorized processes which could cause redshift without deflecting the light in angle, which would blur the images of distant sources.
Lastly there is independent evidence of expansion, in the observations of time dilation in proportion to redshift. Tired light models can have no such effect.

Maybe read the whole post.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:53:21 UTC No. 16448958

>>16448957
I don't even know how to read, honestly this whole posting experience is just really dumb luck from a retard banging on a keyboard.
Amazing results if I say so myself.
Now go fuck off.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:20:56 UTC No. 16448999

>>16434703
I think dark energy and dark matter is simply a placeholder for something, that we don't understand, in our models that are supposed to describe what we are observing in the universe.