13 Things Science Can't Explain

[Vic]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Vic
IMO, dark matter and dark energy are fantasies (the modern day "ether") used to explain away the fact that Newtonian physics doesn't work beyond the solar system scale, and science is dogmatically sticking to its Newtonian laws. I believe that eventually science will come around to the idea of variable gravity, and will even be able to explain it (most likely it is relative to the concentration of mass to the quantity of void space beyond it).

Since when are scientists "dogmatically sticking to Newtonian laws"? It's already been conclusively proven that Newtonian laws are only a (very close) approximations and that general relativity provides a more accurate representation of gravitation. And what makes you think you know more about dark energy and dark matter than the scientists who dedicate entire careers to the matter? You don't know squat.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

In the meantime, I suggest you re-read #5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin and her supporters certainly know a hell of a lot more than squat, and they say dark energy and dark matter are nonsense made up by the mainstream scientists who refuse to drop the strict Newtonian model. This particular topic has been of particular interest to me from some time, and it is my OPINION that future scientific advancement will prove them right, quite probably by the discovery that effect of gravity is cause by the mutual interaction of both mass and space, and not just by mass as the current Newtonian or Einsteinian model tells us.

Thank you, come again.

So an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when I do it, but not you? Why, because your views are less "mainstream"?

Uh... because you said "And what makes you think you know more about dark energy and dark matter than the scientists who dedicate entire careers to the matter?" and I responded with scientists who disagree who have also dedicated their entire careers to the matter?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Vic

In the meantime, I suggest you re-read #5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin and her supporters certainly know a hell of a lot more than squat, and they say dark energy and dark matter are nonsense made up by the mainstream scientists who refuse to drop the strict Newtonian model.

You're a liar, you've never read anything from Vera Rubin. She found ESSENTIAL evidence that suggested dark matter exists. Why would somebody think dark matter is "nonsense" when she was one of the key discoverers of it? Don't think so? Let's let Vera Rubin talk about her discoveries:

Scientific American Frontiers

 

[abj13]

Here's the link, as I can't fix it in my post above

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1405/video/watchonline.htm

Its the second part on Dark Matter.

 

[Vic]

Your links are all kinds of FUBAR'ed. However, I think I've seen that PBS interview in the past and so I suggest you re-watch it for yourself. What Rubin did was discover what some people besides herself use as evidence for dark matter, i.e. that matter orbiting galactic centers does not conform to the Copernican model, where matter closest to the center should orbit more rapidly than matter farther away. Rubin herself, however, does not believe that dark matter is the answer.


edit: no one has ever "discovered" dark matter. It's purely a hypothetical.

 

[91TTZ]

I don't know the answer to any of the problems posed in that article, but it does seem to be written in a tabloidish manner similar to the "a duck's quack doesn't echo and nobody knows why".

In most of those problems, they instantly negate possible causes. If nobody knows the answer, how can they rule out certain possibilities?

 

[Fritzo]

How come they can go to the moon but they can't make my shoes smell good?

 

[judasmachine]

Anyone who accepts science as stagnant, and factual is sadly missing the point. Science is a work in progress, and always will be thus. It's just how we explain the oddities of Nature that we observe everyday. The books we have today will be laughed at tomorrow, so just sit back, grab a bag of nuked popcorn, and enjoy the ride.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Vic
Rubin herself, however, does not believe that dark matter is the answer.

Alda: So when you got that information, then, what did you... did you think you were wrong?
Rubin: No.
Alda: Because everyone thought you were wrong?
Rubin: No, I had some crazy ideas, and then shortly settled that what would have to be was matter that isn't luminous, that you don't see. The galaxy has to extend that far out. There has to be something. There has to be matter that's gravitationally accelerating a little bit of gas that we could see.


So where is your evidence that she believes dark matter is "nonsense?" Right there is an interview from 2004, looking back on her previous work, and she clearly makes the point it is dark matter that best explains what she observed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Vic
Rubin herself, however, does not believe that dark matter is the answer.

Alda: So when you got that information, then, what did you... did you think you were wrong?
Rubin: No.
Alda: Because everyone thought you were wrong?
Rubin: No, I had some crazy ideas, and then shortly settled that what would have to be was matter that isn't luminous, that you don't see. The galaxy has to extend that far out. There has to be something. There has to be matter that's gravitationally accelerating a little bit of gas that we could see.


So where is your evidence that she believes dark matter is "nonsense?" Right there is an interview from 2004, looking back on her previous work, and she clearly makes the point it is dark matter that best explains what she observed.

Uh... you read that wrong. Dark matter is more than just matter than isn't luminous (by which I assume you mean baryonic dark matter). The current model assumes that dark matter is composed primarily of non-baryonic particles, and that is mostly hypothetical (although yes, integral to the current standard model). The obvious baryonic dark matter (like the dark side of the moon for example) is not hypothetical but is believed to be only a small fraction of the matter necessary to explain galactic orbits. So when people say "Dark Matter" in this context, it is normal to assume that they are referring to non-baryonic dark matter, which is not what Rubin was referring to there.

BTW, did you even read the OP?

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
1 The placebo effect

This happens to be a huge problem in these forums.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Vic
Rubin herself, however, does not believe that dark matter is the answer.

Alda: So when you got that information, then, what did you... did you think you were wrong?
Rubin: No.
Alda: Because everyone thought you were wrong?
Rubin: No, I had some crazy ideas, and then shortly settled that what would have to be was matter that isn't luminous, that you don't see. The galaxy has to extend that far out. There has to be something. There has to be matter that's gravitationally accelerating a little bit of gas that we could see.


So where is your evidence that she believes dark matter is "nonsense?" Right there is an interview from 2004, looking back on her previous work, and she clearly makes the point it is dark matter that best explains what she observed.

Uh... you read that wrong. Dark matter is more than just matter than isn't luminous (by which I assume you mean baryonic dark matter). The current model assumes that dark matter is composed primarily of non-baryonic particles, and that is mostly hypothetical (although yes, integral to the current standard model). The obvious baryonic dark matter (like the dark side of the moon for example) is not hypothetical but is believed to be only a small fraction of the matter necessary to explain galactic orbits. So when people say "Dark Matter" in this context, it is normal to assume that they are referring to non-baryonic dark matter, which is not what Rubin was referring to there.

BTW, did you even read the OP?

What on earth are you talking about? None of what you just said had anything to do with that interview. What she says in that interview (I haven't read the whole thing yet, so it may be out of context) is that there must be some sort of non-luminous matter that is gravitationally accelerating the outer parts of a galaxy. Key words there are "non-luminous matter" which is dark matter by definition. Currently all known baryonic matter is luminous, so saying "non-luminous matter" is very strongly implying the dark matter referred to in the OP.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Vic
IMO, dark matter and dark energy are fantasies (the modern day "ether") used to explain away the fact that Newtonian physics doesn't work beyond the solar system scale, and science is dogmatically sticking to its Newtonian laws. I believe that eventually science will come around to the idea of variable gravity, and will even be able to explain it (most likely it is relative to the concentration of mass to the quantity of void space beyond it).

Since when are scientists "dogmatically sticking to Newtonian laws"? It's already been conclusively proven that Newtonian laws are only a (very close) approximations and that general relativity provides a more accurate representation of gravitation. And what makes you think you know more about dark energy and dark matter than the scientists who dedicate entire careers to the matter? You don't know squat.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

In the meantime, I suggest you re-read #5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin and her supporters certainly know a hell of a lot more than squat, and they say dark energy and dark matter are nonsense made up by the mainstream scientists who refuse to drop the strict Newtonian model. This particular topic has been of particular interest to me from some time, and it is my OPINION that future scientific advancement will prove them right, quite probably by the discovery that effect of gravity is cause by the mutual interaction of both mass and space, and not just by mass as the current Newtonian or Einsteinian model tells us.

Thank you, come again.

Read this first and then read this next. This will shed some light on the VERY strong evidence for dark matter and dark energy which is independent of supernovae and galactic radial velocity curve data.

Then take a GR class (if you haven't already) to see how the interaction of energy and space is the essence of GR (in fact, that's why it's so hard to solve most GR problems).

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Vic
Your links are all kinds of FUBAR'ed. However, I think I've seen that PBS interview in the past and so I suggest you re-watch it for yourself. What Rubin did was discover what some people besides herself use as evidence for dark matter, i.e. that matter orbiting galactic centers does not conform to the Copernican model, where matter closest to the center should orbit more rapidly than matter farther away. Rubin herself, however, does not believe that dark matter is the answer.


edit: no one has ever "discovered" dark matter. It's purely a hypothetical.

Uh, there's a paper published a few years ago by some Italian scientists with some weak evidence for non baryonic dark matter. It's not quite sensitive enough to be very convincing, but it's not PURELY hypothetica.

 

[Renob]

.

 

[Pepsi90919]

they will quickly abandon the cold fusion thing after finding out how infuriating JRun is.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
How come they can go to the moon but they can't make my shoes smell good?

The moon mission had a slightly higher budget.

If you want to spend $10,000 per shoe, I'm sure that they can make your shoes smell like just about anything you'd like.

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
they will quickly abandon the cold fusion thing after finding out how infuriating JRun is.

Bad pun. 10 yard penalty. Opposing team gets the ball.

 

[middlehead]

Marked for when I feel like reading :thumbsup: