5 ms·
The flaw in this reasoning is ironically a philosophical (epistemological) one: by what authority is it said we "know" the laws of physics? We "believe" theorie
by uoaei 3y ago
The flaw in this reasoning is ironically a philosophical (epistemological) one: by what authority is it said we "know" the laws of physics? We "believe" theories, even go so far as to sometimes call them "laws", but as we've seen with Newtonian interpretations (the "law" of gravity) they can obviously be superceded by more elegant, positive (not merely deductive) theories, i.e., general relativity. Who is to say our current understanding is the correct or best one? Granted, it's a good place to start for the experimentalists, but for some reason theoreticians have also drank the Kool-aid rather than honestly examining the other proposed theories.
> The known laws of physics have been formed on math that checks out and is consistent with all our other observations
You will of course note that "all the other observations" conveniently reside in the limit of high-mass-density regions of spacetime, where other theories also expect the current best theories of physics to hold. Where the confusion still lies is in the low-mass-density regions. At least other theories posit some explanation besides "there's still mass it just exists in other dimensions". Sounds like sci-fi crackpottery when put so plainly, but I'm sorry to say this characterization is accurate enough for our needs here.
> where does the scepticism end?
Strange application of slippery slope fallacy. It obviously ends where the theories still hold, i.e., high-mass-density regions. This is IMO enough of a response to most of your "philosophical" arguments.
No one's denying that particles exist. I'm only arguing for a theory that actually posits something besides "oops there's a gap". You've articulated a reason why dark matter is offered but it is nothing more than a deduction about where matter would be should it exist. I swear I'm going to have to spin up some cycles on the cluster to fit dark matter models on a geocentric universe to get you people to understand the non-reality of any dark matter paper.
Gosh I love being mansplained on this site by people who obviously have no personal experience with this stuff. Really gets me going.
Edit to reply to your edit:
> when gravity is more of an emergent property of the geometry of spacetime?
Emergent gravity and dark matter are incompatible theories in their usual forms, though there's probably ways to mash them together into a chimera. I suggest reading more into emergent gravity -- entropic gravity is interesting but still in its early stages. I'm not advocating for any particular theory, just humility from those who repeatedly insist that dark matter is already correct and we just need to find the matter.
> since alternative theories (a) also include dark matter, to a lesser extent
No they don't.
- wanda 3y agoAt no point did I say the laws of physics are beyond question or doubt, and neither did I say dark matter is correct. I just said it makes more sense to give DM priority because what is the point of having a model if you don't start from it. Also why are you being so hostile towards me exactly? I didn't express any love for dark matter or the standard model, and I am not a fan of perpetuating a status quo or any form of academic dogma. All I said, quite unsuccessfully it would seem, is why people think its likely for dark matter to be there — because if you add in "invisible" mass with existing laws of physics, you get something that looks like what we see through our telescopes. I think many would prefer to suppose that there is non-EM-interacting mass (a lot of it apparently), than there being as yet unknown behaviours of gravity/spacetime geometry, which we like to think we understand pretty well. Though I agree that we don't understand the universe as well as we like to think; and that the universe is not intuitive at all most of the time; and a preference based on how intuitively likely something seems is irrelevant to what the truth will turn out to be. Edit: just FYI, I am not downvoting your responses by the way. I am not bothered if you dislike me or disagree with things I have said, though these two things should be distinct from each other. I'm nobody and I didn't seek to "mansplain" anything whatever this term is supposed to mean. I was just talking, always happy to debate, something I thought people came here to do. I won't make the mistake again.
- freedomben 3y ago> Gosh I love being mansplained on this site by people who obviously have no personal experience with this stuff. Really gets me going. I say this in the hope that it's constructive. You should try not to sink to this level of rudeness and assumption of other people's motives/situation/perspectives. Not only is it a rude assumption about something that (to me) looks to be a good faith attempt at conversation that also clearly took some time to compose, but it's an emotional response that shows that you take it personally and emotionally when you're challenged. I'm not implying that GP is an idiot (I'm too ignorant on this subject to know), but I've been challenged in subjects where I'm well versed by idiots many times and I tend to react the same way that you did. It can be enraging (especially when surrounded by down votes and social/group reinforcement from other idiots), but you immediately lose any power of persusasion with other people when you stoop to that level rather than keeping on the high road and keeping it factual/scientific. IMHO you're rarely if ever going to convince the person you replied to, but the third party observers are often much more persuadable. They're the people I mainly try to write comments/replies for.