Posted: Oct 12, 2011 1:09 pm
by Dudely
newolder wrote:
Dudely wrote:
So it's simply a humorous coincidence that there happens to be a very similar "constant" that does the same kind of thing as Einstein (but in the other direction, so to speak).

That's just bs. :lol:

Why do you say that? Einstein came up with a constant to explain why the universe is static. We've come up with one to explain why it's expanding. While similar, they were conceived for completely different reasons. How is this BS?

As a side note I will admit you were right in stating that I was a bit off with the quantum stuff having anything at all to do with his cosmological constant stuff. I've been reading a lot about Einstein lately and must have gotten confused.
(Side note on my side note: Einstein fucked his cousin, had a kid, and then abandoned it. What a douche bag, eh?)

newolder wrote:

And, just like dark matter, dark energy is completely hypothetical with no direct evidence for its existence.

Yeah, riiiight, and the Nobel Committee haz been conned. :lol:
Again, it's the best theory and I personally think it will be validated long before I die of old age. But let's not count our chickens before they hatch.


I say this with the greatest respect, but I think you need to reconsider the meaning and purpose of the scientific method. Dark matter and dark energy have no direct evidence for their existence. Period. They are a hypothesis and have not even obtained the status of theory. There is nothing at all wrong with saying this. The Nobel prize committee has not been "conned"; no one is pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Everyone knows there is no evidence for it. The reason they got the prize is because now that physics is so robust any new idea must fit so well in the existing framework that if it's accepted by even a substantial minority of physicists the likelihood that it will be eventually validated by evidence is extremely good. Even if it's wrong it will probably be 90% right.

The value those scientists made was not in coming up with some robust and perfectly validated theory, it was in doing the work in coming up with the explanatory framework in the first place. Dark matter and dark energy fit so well that we're still finding places where it fits with eery accuracy. Lawrence Krauss's did a talk once that included a lot of these. I think he called it "A Universe From Nothing". I can't reccomend it highly enough.

[youtube] [/youtube]

In the interest of scientific accuracy and intellectual honesty I must mention the current level of understanding and validation by evidence. If I talked about dark energy and dark matter and didn't mention that it's just a hypothesis I would not feel like I was being honest.