In order to account for that role, it needs to comprise the vast majority of matter/energy in the universe. And that's where I scratch my chin and wonder whether it is a contriviance -- whether some reworking of our understanding of gravity could offer a different explanation.
And how is reworking gravity not a different contrivance? It is merely a contrivance you would feel more comfortable with even though no evidence exists that gravity works differently. The speed of light could also be variable in one direction is another contrivance that could fabricated to explain that dark energy does not exist. Or do physicists merely stick with that an unknown energy that cannot yet be explained but is supported by current observations?
My issue is not with what dark energy is called. It is that it appears to be a contrived explanation. But it is an explanation.,
There is unknown energy and matter that has been observed over decades by many, many scientists in many different ways. How were those observations contrived? They called it "dark" because it is not luminous. They could have called it magical pixie energy and matter. What would have assuaged your objections?
What would they need her for? It wasn't her car that was broken into, an event that was captured on camera.
It was a rental car.
The possessions stolen weren't hers, some of the data on some of them were.
The music was hers. You asserting that because she did not own all the possessions means she did not own any of the possessions.
Neither she nor the actual owner/renter witnessed the crime. They really wouldn't need her at trial.
Items of hers were stolen. She not being the only victim does not mean she was not a victim. Generally a prosecutor wants all victims to be at a trial.
Again, I'm no physicist, but my understanding of Relativity was it's the difference in velocity that causes time dilation - not gravity
You are referring to Special Relativity, not General Relativity. General Relativity specified how gravity was a property of space and time. Also space and time are not separate items but unified as "spacetime".
That is, if you and I both leave the earth at the same time, but you travel 10 times faster than me. Someone on the ground somehow tells us to stop at the exact same moment, you'll think it was only an hour, where I'll think it was a day (or whatever). Gravity hasn't really got anything to do with that.
You example is missing one factor and focuses only on Special Relativity which deals with velocity. But you have precluded gravity in your setup.If one of us went into a much higher orbit than the other that could have a greater effect than speed. The GPS satellite system has to deal with both types of relativity as it affects internal clocks on GPS satellites in opposing ways. The speed of the satellite causes these clocks to slower than surface clocks (special relativity) but the position away from surface causes them to be faster than surface clocks (general relativity).
then it would suggest that time and gravity are in fact linked - the more gravity, the slower time moves. Perhaps it's immeasurable at "normal" gravities, and only really shows up in the extremes of black holes and supernovae, but my thinking here is that it would suggest that as you move throughout space, time, gravity, the passage of light or indeed you all vary to some extent.
Gravity and time are linked. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity established that. Numerous experiments have already confirmed that.
TFS points out that, if the current results (deviations from FLRW geometry) turn out to be correct, then they rule out a number of theories, including "evolving or interacting dark energy." I take that to mean dark energy isn't real, at least the "evolving or interacting" kind.
It rules out how things could have occurred. One of the main issues with the current model is it cannot explain dark energy and matter. The results do not rule out that the observed phenomena exists.
Dark energy always struck me as an ad hoc explanation for something not-yet-fully understood. But it was the simplest explanation at the time, so cosmologists went with it.
And it strikes me people are too fixated on the naming. It is unknown energy and matter that has been observed multiple ways throughout decades. It was called "dark" because it is not luminous.
It has fuck all to do with the damn name, and everything to do with the billions being funding the marketing of advancement instead of actual advancement in the "dark" arts of space science. And a lot of that funding comes from taxpayer wallets.
I was not aware that billions were given to PR firms to market a term in science. Which PR firms got these billions?
After several billions of dollars and decades of study, let’s try and remember why they are forced to still use the marketing term “dark”.
No one is forced to use the term "dark". You can use whatever term you want; however, physicists use that in their field as their term. You/they can call it "fairy pixie" matter and energy if they wanted..
I mind funding bullshitters who use and abuse marketing terms in order to market “expertise” in a field still standing in the dark.
They call it "dark" because it is the opposite of light. It does not give off visible light/EM. It isn't marketing; it is descriptive. You are calling it marketing when it is just scientists describing what they observe.
Anyway, what should I run instead? Linux? I mean do you want to count which OS has had the highest numbers of security related stories here in the past couple of weeks? You're not going to like the answer.
Only if cherry picking the last few weeks is the only way to support your argument. If you look at Windows security vs Linux security historically, your argument would be pathetic.
Defence in depth people. You shouldn't assume your OS is perfectly secure. . .
No one said that. That's a strawman argument at best. No OS is perfectly secure. However what I know is Windows had been historically ridden with exploit after exploit.
So were you aware that the suitcases had items worth more than $0.20?
Master recordings of a bunch of tree frogs at night....likely aren't worth all that much.
Taylor Swift spending $360M for her master recordings because they were worth that much according to you.
I would be inclined to consider any master recordings of any Beyonce content to be lesser than tree frog recordings....so....
That's why you a rich music executive then? No?
Nature is by and large to be found out of doors, a location where, it cannot be argued, there are never enough comfortable chairs. -- Fran Lebowitz
