Summations Only

Yes, do.Begin by telling me this. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous? No. So, like gravity then. Or the Earth's core. Or the year 1000 AD. Or solar fusion. Or magnetic fields.

The scientists are picking up on this one already, but can I just ask you to clarify one thing - when you say: are you using "invisibility" to mean "does not produce electro magnetic radiation, which is within the small band of the electro magnetic spectrum which the human eye is capable of detecting" ?

Looking at invisibility eh? Surely that's an oxymoron.When we "look" at argon gas, are we looking at invisibility? Assuming that such a sentence even makes sense, what is its the significance.And there is no anti-gravity associated with either dark energy or dark matter. I can understand making such a mistake with dark energy...

Dr. Adequate my friend of many disciplines. In the case of dark matter a small portion of it is proposed to be baryonic but the lions share of Dark matter is non baryonic with some proposals relying on the spontaneous breaking of symmetry moderated by the Higgs mechanism. Well I think it can be concluded by now that the Higgs Boson is a myth (have not checked recently on this). If Dark matter is a quantum effect, how is it going to be identified by science? I guess you just have to have faithright. Gravity is quantifiable in general relativity, the earths core is observable by property of shock waves, solar fusion is re-creatable in nuclear weapons (although solar neutrinos are somewhat missing). Maxwell’s equations and Gauss's law for magnetism cover magnetic and electric fields.What is a hypothesis that has no mechanism and is largely unquantifiable??Science?

Anti-Gravity/ neg. vacuum energy Potato/ Pota’toHere is my stab at dark energy.Here is how I see dark energy as not being the proposed vacuum energy.Consider a General Relativity field equation.Is dark energy "neg. vacuum energy or is it expanding space (vacuum energy verses {cosmological constant x space time metric tensor}). When Einstein introduced his cosmological constant, it was on the same side of the field equation as his curvature tensor, which equated it to a property of space. A modern view places dark energy other side of the field equation and multiplied times the space-time metric tensor, which gives it a kind of energy implication. I believe that Einstein was right in the first place by putting it with the curvature tensor. I thought It must be a property of space and therefore not matter energy just my uneducated guess (correction by a real physicist is invited).As a dark energy, there has also had an attempt at an explanation by quantum fluctuations but the observed dark energy posses far less of a force (~20,000 times less) than quantum physics would suggest.It must be a property of space expansion thus the hand of God.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

I am playing the provocateur. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Is that creationese for "deliberately being wrong"? Only there's another name for that.

Not all of them, then. Then I should check again if I were you. And dark matter is quantifiable, which is why we know how much of it there is. Like the Earth's core, it is necessary to predict our observations.---How about you answer my question. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old.You are trying to establish a difference between dark matter/dark energy, and something like the earth's core, solar fusion, and any other thing we know only by indirect evidence, but you are not getting there. In each case we can and have quantified the component and we have only indirect measurements. In some cases we know a lot about the entity, but that "lot" is all determined and verified from indirect measurement.As for no mechanism, can you explain how gravity warps space? Could Newton explain the apparent 'action at a distance?'ABE: Is this a misunderstanding or something more deliberate. You were wrong and are still wrong. And what is the explanation for your error regarding dark matter being having anti-gravity?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Einstein added a cosmological constant because by doing so he was able to generate solutions allowing a static universe. Unfortunately, those solutions were not stable with regard to not expanding/contracting. Even more unfortunate for Albert, it shortly became evident that the universe was expanding, something Einstein would like to have predicted. I'll let you draw your own conclusion about whether Einstein was correct or not. Yikes. Dude... It's more impressive say things like this after you've been right about something.

The right or left hand? Or maybe a two hand grip?You have evidence I suppose of this "hand of God"?

Well, we've found one of his gloves.

The problem with solutions like "the hand of God" is that they leave us as ignorant about how stuff works as we were before.As most folk here know, I am a devout Christian who does believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. But that's a personal belief and really irrelevant to the question of Cosmology or Evolution or any other field of inquiry.The question is "how is it done?"We observe the universe and see that it is expanding. We look at the energy sources and find that no matter how we add them up, we just don't see sufficient energy to explain the accelerating expansion. There has to be something more that we have not yet identified and so we assign a placeholder name to the force or forces we have not yet identified; we call it "Dark Energy".We observe galaxies and find some behave in ways that we cannot explain based on the total mass that we can see. There needs to be something more that we have not yet identified and so we assign a placeholder name to the mass or masses we have not yet identified; we call it "Dark Matter".We keep observing and find that we can observe where the Dark Matter seems to be located and we can tell how much Dark Energy there must be and some of the characteristics of Dark Energy.The important point is that although we do not yet know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy are, we do know that whatever they are they are subject to direct observation by humans and that the observations do not depend on the observers POV or belief system or bias.It is acknowledging areas where we do not yet have answers and continuing to search for those answers, while inserting "the hand of God" is an end point and an end point that teaches us nothing about how stuff works.

(I'm desperately trying to get involved with EVC again, but feel hopelessly out of my league lol... I'll take a stab at a minor contribution here)It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a stretch to accept the notion that, in the vastness of space, there would me matter which is not visible to us. If matter does not emit radiation (visible or not) of its own accord, and has no nearby light source to illuminate it (which would describe the vast majority of the universe), then it would be for all intents and purposes undetectable to us... EXCEPT by observing its gravitational influence on other matter that is observed. If one limits oneself to accepting only that which is directly observed, one must throw out a great deal of subsequently firmly established science.As an aside - I'd be curious if someone could point to an article detailing "direct observation" (whatever that might be) of dark matter - I am struggling to locate any sort of "smoking gun" in this respect - I see several plausible studies, but they all rely on indirect observation to some extent. In fact, I don't see how one could "directly" observe dark matter unless you capture it in a test tube and and shine a light on it.Edited by Briterican, : Added request for info regarding possible "direct" observation of dark matter.

NoNukes are good Nukes I must admit that my intent was not to include dark matter as the anti-gravity association; I associated anti-gravity to dark energy (a misunderstanding I did not pick up on). When I goggled anti-gravity and dark energy, I came up with this article in universetoday.

quote:

---

Now, a new study reveals an alternative theory: that the expansion of the universe is actually due to the relationship between matter and antimatter. According to this study, matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other and create a kind of antigravity that could do away with the need for dark energy in the universe.

---

Antigravity Could Replace Dark Energy as Cause of Universe's Expansion - Universe TodayGo figure for my point of dark energy being anti-gravity, I know that the term anti-gravity is just a colloquialism but just Google anti-gravity and dark energy.Here is one Scientists Examine ‘Dark Energy’ of Antigravity - The New York TimesWhat Is Dark Energy? | SpaceThere are literally hundreds.Here is a direct reference and in some literature for dark energy, (omega energy is vacuum energy).Sorry for the misunderstanding but I did learn something.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.