Anyway, my point: Quite often experiments show us phenomena we'd never expect to see judging from our current theories of how something works. That's how science progresses. You get new input and refine your theories to explain all the data you gathered up to that point + the new data.

This part of your comment:

". . . . If every discovery in science were predicted by our theories, we wouldn't need to do… y'know, do experiments."

seems to equate theoretical prediction with experimental observation. I feel certain that this is not what you meant to convey because none of your other comments are absurd as this seems to be.

Ok… here is what I wrote: "They weren't initially predicted (DE and DM), but what's the point? If every discovery in science were predicted by our theories, we wouldn't need to do… y'know, do experiments."

So, I said that not everything we have discover has been predicted by our theories (which is true, duh, otherwise we wouldn't make progress).
And your reply to that is that I'm suggesting not to build the LHC because the Higgs has been predicted by our theorie?

I don't get you.

While General Relativity is the best scientific choice so far, the Copernican Principle is a philosophical choice, and leaving it aside is as scientifically valid as postulating it."

The funny thing about the Copernican Principle is that it makes a claim about the structure of the universe, which, lo and behold, is testable! And in fact has been tested. Let me quote wiki for you: "Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican principle on a cosmological scale.[5] The radiation that pervades the universe was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion."

Doesn't sound like an open philosophical question, if you ask me (and science).

i would love to write some sci-fi if i had more time. (i use most of my creative energy on music, and i do have a few 'space songs'!)

but the more i think on it i really don't have trouble believing that computers in another civilization could evolve into 'cosmic travellers'. non-biological entities are much better suited for interstellar travel.

So you're saying that because the Higgs particle was predicted by the Standard Model there was really no reason to build the LHC to detect it. Is that right?

Actually, we infer that the expansion of the universe accelerates by interpreting obervations of supernova redshift within the conceptual framework of the FLRW (or FRW) metric. That metric is based on two pillars: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle, the latter based in turn on the Copernican Principle: the Earth (or in more contemporary speak, our galaxy, group or even supercluster) does not occupy a special place in the universe.

By leaving aside the Copernican Principle, a different metric would apply, in which redshift observations could be interpreted so that they do not lead to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

While General Relativity is the best scientific choice so far, the Copernican Principle is a phylosophical choice, and leaving it aside is as scientifically valid as postulating it.

I think you meant to say: "there is little empirical evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerated by DE"

I hope you do not doubt that the universe is flying apart at all.

Andi wrote: "My only real problem with DM and DE was that, unlike the Higgs boson, neither was predicted by any of the existing models/theories. I always thought that the truest test of a theory was its ability, not just to explain, but to predict."

They weren't initially predicted, but what's the point? If every discovery in science were predicted by our theories, we wouldn't need to do… y'know, do experiments.

The important thing here is not that we didn't expect to see those things, but now THAT WE see them, they don't contradict our current theories. Dark Matter isn't unimaginable, it could be explained with our model of particle physics (namely with WIMPS) and fits neatly with our views on the formation of galaxies.

Dark Energy is a parameter that even Einstein added to his GR (even if for completely different reasons), but we don't need to rewrite the whole GR because of it's discovery.

If you want sources that are easier to understand… maybe you should listen to the AstronomyCast episodes or check out wikipedia.

[QUOTE=JamesB]You have 'dark stuff' trying to handle our basic misunderstanding of gravity, whether it's energy to explain why the universe may be expanding, or extra matter to explain why clusters aren't.[/QUOTE]
Our understanding of gravity works fine, thank you. There has yet to be ANY indication that general relativity has ANY problems, besides its working on the quantum scale. It's shown again and again (google: pulsar + relativity) that it explains gravitational phenomena on large scales.
Also: The scientific community is working on MOND (modified newtonian mechanics, see wikipedia) to see whether MAYBE our understanding of gravity needs SOMEHOW be modified after all. Turns out, it doesn't. MOND doesn't work yet and the majority of scientist think it never will. And since DM explains ALL of the phenomena that MOND can't… why bother? Researchers go with the theory that has merit, not the one that appeals to our common sense.

PS: my comment might have been a bit harsh, but it really ticks me off when lay-people (arrogantly imo) assume that they know more about the subject than researchers who spend half of their life working on these problems.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-universe

You have 'dark stuff' trying to handle our basic misunderstanding of gravity, whether it's energy to explain why the universe may be expanding, or extra matter to explain why clusters aren't.

It's all the same thing, a proxy for gravity. 'Dark Stuff'…

Now as others pointed out, dark energy and dark matter are two completely different things. Also, we don't have to know WHAT dark matter or dark matter is, to establish that SOMETHING exists that has so-and-so attributes.
We see that the expansion of the universe accelerates, something has to cause it. We just label it Dark Energy (you can call it the Cosmological Constant if you don't like the word "dark").

Something has to keep Galaxy Clusters from flying apart. This something is massive, because it bends space-time and distorts what we see behind it. We call it Dark Matter. So what the hell is the problem you guys have?

The question of what it really is will not be answered for another 1000 years.

Unless the answer is this:

Energy coming from miniscule matter in empty space that is so shrinked by absolute zero that it gives away energy to less colder regions of deep space towards warmer galaxies or bigger.
And all of these little energies flowing like waves in water when you throw something in it, these waves of energies make our universe expand.
(or like domino beginning whit small stones that pushes bigger stones on the way)

So if these energy waves push galaxies, why are there galaxies combining?

This is because the emptiness on the sides of galaxies is never the same obviously.
Bigger empty deep space means more waves or bigger energy wave, thus making two or more galaxies joining when they get pushed towards each other.

Also, not like water, waves in space don’t see resistant by density or others. So the bigger the emptiness the larger the waves get the faster it pushes.
Keep in mind that we are talking about very tiny energy and very tiny particles.

If it’s not the absolute zero that generates the energy,
it can be light that penetrates trough deep space from all sides causing warm-up by reacting with some of these,
shrinked by absolute zero, particles.

As you can see now, this proves

- Deep space is not totally empty
- There is energy we cant see
- Universe expands
- Universe keeps expanding speeding.
- And this also solves the hexagon on one of our planets (just kidding I think)
- Off coursing objects send into deep space
- Ten Mysteries of the Solar System:
o 10. Solar Pole Temperature Mismatch
o 3. The Kuiper Cliff: Why does the Kuiper Belt suddenly end?
o 1. The Oort Cloud: How do we know the Oort Cloud even exists?
o 2. The Pioneer Anomaly: Why are the Pioneer probes drifting off-course
o
- and more…
-
6 to go 

It took me quite some time and researches to come up with this possibly to be accepted theory of mine.
To be precise from 26/09/2008 16.30 till 26/09/2008 18.00

I guess it’s that simple? Or maybe it needs some more thinking and researching?

Thx for reading.
Attila gel
Belgium

let's assume a highly intelligent biological form of life evolved in the early universe. this life form eventually created artificial life (computers) and the computers themselves evolved and eventually left their original planet to explore the universe.

the computers, much like our computers, would continue to shrink (as nanotechnology evolved) to the point of being incomprehensibly small. but these nano-AI creations roam the universe and take on 'science projects' to increase their knowledge, as knowledge acquisition becomes their primary objective for continued expansion of intelligence.

the universe may be infused with intelligence at a microscopic level and may be subject to the objectives and goals of that intelligence, which includes 'proper maintenance' of the universe. the nano-AI's themselves could be small enough in size to account for the matter we cannot perceive in the universe, but which has gravitational effects on the whole.