4 ms·

If someone were to ask me I'd say I embraced the scientific consensus that dark matter is real, but in my heart of hearts I have to admit that it smells like ph

by causi 4y ago

If someone were to ask me I'd say I embraced the scientific consensus that dark matter is real, but in my heart of hearts I have to admit that it smells like phlogiston and aether to me, and its lack of falsifiability is not something I can ignore.

yccs27 4y ago
About the falsibility - we have a paper with a method to disprove dark matter right here. There are many different cosmological observations which demonstrate deviations between expected and measured gravity, and they are only getting more numerous. If one theory can explain them all, that would already be a big accomplishment. Dark matter seems to explain more than any competitor, but as I understand it no theory seems to fit perfectly.
- cedilla 4y ago
  We have the claim of a refutation here, but one that is obviously weak. If your only explanation of why your toy theory is rejected by everyone else is collective, universal delusion you've already disproven yourself. No theory fits perfectly, but that is what we expect in a world of imperfect knowledge.
  - yccs27 4y ago
    The science of their method to disprove dark matter is really pretty good. The problem is how they present other scientists as foolish for holding onto dark matter theory. More researchers should definitely take a look at the evidence. There are some strong reasons why dark matter is the favored model, and it needs to be a strong refutation to rule it out. If other contenders like MOND didn't also have significant problems of their own, people would also be more eager to lend them credibility instead of dark matter.
zinclozenge 4y ago
This is the same situation as when special relativity was being developed. The equations for the mechanical theory of the aether looked exactly the same as the equations for special relativity. Similarly any modified gravity theory will be identical to a dark matter theory, except for the motivating principles. So far modified gravity theories can’t explain everything. That and they would have to integrate with general relativity for which evidence is only getting stronger.
russdill 4y ago
It seems so incredibly unsurprising and mundane that given the particle zoo that we have that it might include a set of particles that interact very weakly with the electromagnetic field and so are extremely difficult for us to directly detect. That of course doesn't say one way or another that such hypothetical particles can account for the amount of mass needed.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  If all that was needed was extra mystery mass sprinkled everywhere, there would be little problem. The exact problem is that sprinkling extra mystery mass everywhere produces results inconsistent with observation.
lazyjones 4y ago
The whole idea of a "scientific consensus" is flawed as it's being used. Here, DM is the dominant theory in the scientific community at this time, but there are strong arguments against it, how can one call that a "consensus"? It's just the dominant theory.
hither_shores 4y ago
> I have to admit that it smells like phlogiston and aether to me You know what else smells like phlogiston? Oxygen. There really is an invisible, odorless, tasteless gas responsible for combustion, plant growth, and breathing. 17th century chemists thought that it was released during combustion, absorbed by plants, and expelled by the lungs. Turns out it's absorbed during combustion, released by plants, and taken in by the lungs. Phlogiston was a reasonable theory, well supported by the available evidence at the time. It was also wrong. Most theories are. But this could not have possibly been predicted a priori.

by causi 4y ago

yccs27 4y ago

About the falsibility - we have a paper with a method to disprove dark matter right here. There are many different cosmological observations which demonstrate deviations between expected and measured gravity, and they are only getting more numerous. If one theory can explain them all, that would already be a big accomplishment. Dark matter seems to explain more than any competitor, but as I understand it no theory seems to fit perfectly.

cedilla 4y ago
We have the claim of a refutation here, but one that is obviously weak. If your only explanation of why your toy theory is rejected by everyone else is collective, universal delusion you've already disproven yourself. No theory fits perfectly, but that is what we expect in a world of imperfect knowledge.
- yccs27 4y ago
  The science of their method to disprove dark matter is really pretty good. The problem is how they present other scientists as foolish for holding onto dark matter theory. More researchers should definitely take a look at the evidence. There are some strong reasons why dark matter is the favored model, and it needs to be a strong refutation to rule it out. If other contenders like MOND didn't also have significant problems of their own, people would also be more eager to lend them credibility instead of dark matter.

zinclozenge 4y ago

This is the same situation as when special relativity was being developed. The equations for the mechanical theory of the aether looked exactly the same as the equations for special relativity. Similarly any modified gravity theory will be identical to a dark matter theory, except for the motivating principles. So far modified gravity theories can’t explain everything. That and they would have to integrate with general relativity for which evidence is only getting stronger.

russdill 4y ago

It seems so incredibly unsurprising and mundane that given the particle zoo that we have that it might include a set of particles that interact very weakly with the electromagnetic field and so are extremely difficult for us to directly detect. That of course doesn't say one way or another that such hypothetical particles can account for the amount of mass needed.

ncmncm 4y ago
If all that was needed was extra mystery mass sprinkled everywhere, there would be little problem. The exact problem is that sprinkling extra mystery mass everywhere produces results inconsistent with observation.

lazyjones 4y ago

The whole idea of a "scientific consensus" is flawed as it's being used. Here, DM is the dominant theory in the scientific community at this time, but there are strong arguments against it, how can one call that a "consensus"? It's just the dominant theory.

hither_shores 4y ago

> I have to admit that it smells like phlogiston and aether to me You know what else smells like phlogiston? Oxygen. There really is an invisible, odorless, tasteless gas responsible for combustion, plant growth, and breathing. 17th century chemists thought that it was released during combustion, absorbed by plants, and expelled by the lungs. Turns out it's absorbed during combustion, released by plants, and taken in by the lungs. Phlogiston was a reasonable theory, well supported by the available evidence at the time. It was also wrong. Most theories are. But this could not have possibly been predicted a priori.