3 ms·
Could it be that our traditional models of motion and light propagation in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error? It seems most a
by effie 9y ago
Could it be that our traditional models of motion and light propagation in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error?
It seems most astronomy theoreticians will rather not rock the boat, they will rather keep believing in invisible stuff permeating space everywhere with variable but exactly right density so it is consistent with star motions and images observed. I guess it's because stuff with infinity of degrees of freedom is traditionally much more secure paradigm to base a career on than to question the established beliefs in applicability of Newtonian mechanics/General relativity.
> "The only theory that has withstood the last several decades of experimental observation and simulation"
Which competing theories were put to stand the test of observation? What made them not stand well in light of observations?
> "It's the only thing that explains all the evidence"
There is little example to such a thing as scientific theory explaining all the evidence. But even if dark matter paradigm did do such a feat, it would not be a good sign for the truthfulness of it. Theories that explain everything are suspicious - they may be exercises in fitting and may not be so scientific or useful as competing theories that explain less, but better.
- icanhackit 9y ago> Could it be that our traditional models of motion and light propagation in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error? Or whoever programmed our reality couldn't build a consistent macro-physics engine so they hacked something together while hoping biological evolution wouldn't lead to anything that would notice it. Everything was going smoothly with the natural-selection add-on until the platypus and hominids showed up.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoThis is extremely ignorant. You are demonstrating you have absolutely no familiarity with the subject matter, with the nature of the theory, with the nature of the experimentation that has been done to eliminate other theories, or with even the most rudimentary basics of cosmology. As such there's no value in actually debating you on these points.
- effie 9y agoI would never ask you to debate here. If my points are wrong, show the HN community why. Please exclude any ad-hominem rhetorical maneuvers that are useful to no one. EDIT: re the first sentence: I do not participate here to get value via winning a speaking contest.
- jjaredsimpson 9y ago>If my points are wrong It's your job to not be wrong about knowable things. Read a summary of the literature if you are actually interested instead of just proposing that a well accepted theory is wrong because "theoreticians" are biased.
- effie 9y ago> It's your job to not be wrong about knowable things. I was requesting the parent to point out which of my points and why they are wrong. I think reply of such kind would be far more useful to many people here sharing similar views to mine on the idea of dark matter or usefulness of academic work in this direction. > 'Read a summary of the literature if you are actually interested' I am actually interested in what people here, including you, think of my points; I was hoping for substantive replies to them. Your suggestion to 'read up and shut up' comes out as arrogant and uncalled for.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoThis is intellectually dishonest. You're pushing all the work and rigor on others while accepting none for yourself. You're saying "I don't understand this subject, but I still have an opinion, it's your job to also explain the subject to me in addition to explaining why I'm wrong". This is unacceptable in an age where access to the internet (Wikipedia, etc.) makes educating yourself easy. Do better.
- effie 9y agoI am not sure why you are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about me not understanding the subject or demanding that you should explain the subject to me. Please read my post again and if you can, address the points made there. EDIT: those points, slightly expanded, are: 1) Could it be that Newtonian/Einsteinian models of motion in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error? If not, how do we know that, since we cannot experiment there, with massive objects on astronomical scales? 2) Is working in line of a popular paradigm much more preferable to most researchers than proposing a radical new theory that is inconsistent with it? 3) Searching for different model / theory is hard work but if it successfuly explains something and provides directions to continue, is preferable to fitting massive quanta of data to a model with infinity degrees of freedom (density of dark matter in space). 4) It is hard to find an example of scientific theory fitting all the evidence. Fitting all the evidence suggests we are doing a fitting exercise, not a scientific theory.