5 ms·

Rather than just making a conspiratorial post, could you explain these alternative theories and why you see this article as strong evidence against existing mai

Rather than just making a conspiratorial post, could you explain these alternative theories and why you see this article as strong evidence against existing mainstream theories?

exe34 2y ago
even better, he could offer an alternative that doesn't fall on its face based on existing observations.
- haccount 2y ago
  My contribution is that current theory falls on it its face based on existing observations. That stands on its own. That I don't provide a viable replacement is a refutation of absolutely nothing.
  - exe34 2y ago
    I think we already know that - otherwise nobody would be trying to gather more observations with the hope of throwing up a clue as to what the solution would be. the current theories are favoured purely because they work in more cases than any alternatives. nobody is saying they are 100% correct. so I'm not sure your contribution is terribly novel.
haccount 2y ago
I don't keep much track of the alternative theories, my feeds are dialed for space news and every second article is paraphrased as "new JWST observations doesn't fit current theories" It's constantly finding something too big, too old, too early and in the wrong place. As for dark matter, repeat failure of observation in both man made experiments and inconsistencies in the cosmic distribution. If we called it the "ad hoc variable representing the will of the gods lightly pushing shit around" it would more accurately fit observations. Something spins too fast, arbitrary dial the will of god to keep shit together in that particular place. Inconsistent with elsewhere? No problem the Gods will it differently there, maybe the average distribution of worshippers is lower in that galaxy? Contemporary evidence is the the same for both formulations of the dark mystery variable that forces observation to adhere to the fraying theory. At some point the accumulated problems grow so large you don't need to be on a cosmologist payroll to recognize it for being legacy bullshit grandfathered into the present.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  There's a variety of issues with your stance. 1) It's certainly not unheard of for theories have observational or experimental data appears that sends them back to the drawing board for reworking and do eventually get to a consistent state 2) Every other proposed theory to answer these questions ultimately ends up fitting the observational data we have even worse, or doesn't even attempt to explain it 3) Plenty of scientists are still poking at alternative theories and very few scientists love dark matter as an answer. They've just loved every proposed alternative less. There's no shortage of dark matter detractors. It's just that none of them can come up with a better solution to answer questions about all the things that dark matter does answer. And no, just going "the gods did it" isn't better, because you can't use that as a theory to answer why some things are behaving the way they are, and we can with dark matter. And we do it quite often - far more often than we find weird things like these isolated quasars. But of course you don't get a front page hackernews article every time scientists apply science and things come out consistent with the existing science. There's not some shadowy cabal of cosmologists doing everything in their power to keep the cult of dark matter alive. There's a bunch of experts who have seen the same arguments raised thousands of times with zero meaningful variation and have gotten tired of having to explain the same things over and over.
  - Jevon23 2y ago
    >1) It's certainly not unheard of for theories have observational or experimental data appears that sends them back to the drawing board for reworking and do eventually get to a consistent state Sure. But when the socially dominant theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “a temporary setback that calls for some reworking”, and when a heterodox theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “falling flat on its face”, as you can see in another reply below. That’s not a healthy dynamic. > There's not some shadowy cabal of cosmologists doing everything in their power to keep the cult of dark matter alive. No… but curiously, you will get your comment flagged and removed on HN for making such a claim!
    - mr_mitm 2y ago
      Ah, yes, of course HN is in bed with Big Cosmology.

Rather than just making a conspiratorial post, could you explain these alternative theories and why you see this article as strong evidence against existing mainstream theories?

exe34 2y ago

even better, he could offer an alternative that doesn't fall on its face based on existing observations.

haccount 2y ago
My contribution is that current theory falls on it its face based on existing observations. That stands on its own. That I don't provide a viable replacement is a refutation of absolutely nothing.
- exe34 2y ago
  I think we already know that - otherwise nobody would be trying to gather more observations with the hope of throwing up a clue as to what the solution would be. the current theories are favoured purely because they work in more cases than any alternatives. nobody is saying they are 100% correct. so I'm not sure your contribution is terribly novel.

haccount 2y ago

I don't keep much track of the alternative theories, my feeds are dialed for space news and every second article is paraphrased as "new JWST observations doesn't fit current theories" It's constantly finding something too big, too old, too early and in the wrong place. As for dark matter, repeat failure of observation in both man made experiments and inconsistencies in the cosmic distribution. If we called it the "ad hoc variable representing the will of the gods lightly pushing shit around" it would more accurately fit observations. Something spins too fast, arbitrary dial the will of god to keep shit together in that particular place. Inconsistent with elsewhere? No problem the Gods will it differently there, maybe the average distribution of worshippers is lower in that galaxy? Contemporary evidence is the the same for both formulations of the dark mystery variable that forces observation to adhere to the fraying theory. At some point the accumulated problems grow so large you don't need to be on a cosmologist payroll to recognize it for being legacy bullshit grandfathered into the present.

cthalupa 2y ago
There's a variety of issues with your stance. 1) It's certainly not unheard of for theories have observational or experimental data appears that sends them back to the drawing board for reworking and do eventually get to a consistent state 2) Every other proposed theory to answer these questions ultimately ends up fitting the observational data we have even worse, or doesn't even attempt to explain it 3) Plenty of scientists are still poking at alternative theories and very few scientists love dark matter as an answer. They've just loved every proposed alternative less. There's no shortage of dark matter detractors. It's just that none of them can come up with a better solution to answer questions about all the things that dark matter does answer. And no, just going "the gods did it" isn't better, because you can't use that as a theory to answer why some things are behaving the way they are, and we can with dark matter. And we do it quite often - far more often than we find weird things like these isolated quasars. But of course you don't get a front page hackernews article every time scientists apply science and things come out consistent with the existing science. There's not some shadowy cabal of cosmologists doing everything in their power to keep the cult of dark matter alive. There's a bunch of experts who have seen the same arguments raised thousands of times with zero meaningful variation and have gotten tired of having to explain the same things over and over.
- Jevon23 2y ago
  >1) It's certainly not unheard of for theories have observational or experimental data appears that sends them back to the drawing board for reworking and do eventually get to a consistent state Sure. But when the socially dominant theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “a temporary setback that calls for some reworking”, and when a heterodox theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “falling flat on its face”, as you can see in another reply below. That’s not a healthy dynamic. > There's not some shadowy cabal of cosmologists doing everything in their power to keep the cult of dark matter alive. No… but curiously, you will get your comment flagged and removed on HN for making such a claim!
  - mr_mitm 2y ago
    Ah, yes, of course HN is in bed with Big Cosmology.