Alternative Cosmology?

No, just yet another case of idiot layman science writers not having the first clue about what they are writing. We've covered this common misunderstanding several times here at EvC, yet the popular science press can still make money by printing bullshit.

That's 'cos you still don't understand them Anyone who groups the two together so naively will never be taken seriously. Dark energy has always been half expected by those of us in theoretical phsyics and was no real surprise - though a fantastic discovery. How does that equate to a fudge?Dark matter on the other hand was a surprise, and requires a much more complex answer. However, the vast majority of observations suggest that cold dark matter (WIMPs) forms the primary component, as opposed to just about every other conceivable way of changing physics to accomodate observation.Critics seem to have this bizarre notion that we guess an answer that seems cool, and then consider the problem solved. Although a tempting way of working, surprisingly real science does not progress this way...

I'm crap at linking stuff. Just use search with "entanglement" and "bell's theorem" and you'll find more than enough.

Can you? Anyone who addresses both subjects simultaneously automatically qualifies for crank status (just because the two concepts have 'dark' in their names doesn't mean that they are in any way linked.) Or are you suggesting that there are two independent paradigm shifts? Any clue as to what these are? Both. And in each case, from both General Relativity (cosmological constant) and quantum gravity (e.g. SuperGravity) You do realise that the accelerating Universe is just the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker cosmology? Any clues when this was developed? It wasn't the 90s... Is this all you think has been done in the search for the nature of dark matter? And you are suggesting that this hasn't been done? Your evidence? That we haven't taken up a new paradigm? Could it be that we have considered many new paradigms but none have matched observation as well as CDM? And your consideration is based upon evidence, or upon a general suspiscion that if scientists can be wrong about creation, they can be wrong about cosmology?

If I said that the answer to Dark Matter has just been revealed to lie within the leaking branes of M-Theory, or the intricacies of Loop Quantum Gravity, then many would quit their whinging, and nod their heads saying - yeah, I knew it. I would love this to be the case as it would be a great test/observation of these theories at work. It would be fantastic. BUT THE FUCKING EVIDENCE AT THE MOMENT FAVOURS THE FUCKING BORING COLD DARK MATTER AND SO WHAT I WOULD PREFER IS FUCKING IMMATERIAL.ABE: Rant in no way aimed at Iblis - he was just an innocent casualityEdited by cavediver, : No reason given.