/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15845946
It doesn't exist

>>15845946
I like you, anon. I've been wondering the same thing. But, nah... I don't have the answer either.

>>15845946
Dark matter is the required excuse to make observations fit the current models. Better models will be what fit the observations though

>How exactly do physicists know it exists?
they don't
>What proves it existence?
nothing, it's basically a hypothesis
>It doesn't make any sense to me.
Our most successful model for gravity shat itself when presented with the movement of some galaxies, and nobody really knows why.
You either have to assume the rules still hold true (something is there but we just can't see or interact with it, let's see if we can detect it,) replace the model with something better (i.e. GUT (no patrick, string theory is not GUT),) or throw your hands up and let the inconsistencies remain.

>>15846082
How did they come to the 97% conclusion?

Dark matter is obviously just the antigraviton. That's why we can't find either, they keep annihilating one another. Either that or it's cloaked alien superstructures. It's one or the other.

>>15846082
GUTs don’t include gravity, brainlet
they unify spin 1 fields and have nothing to do with gravity, which is spin 2.
They’re precisely the former type of model, because GUTs have to include new fields fit the standard model representations into GUT ones

>>15845946
its just normal matter too cold or weird for retarded telescope operators to see.

>How exactly do physicists know it exists? What proves it existence?
The idea was originally floated to explain how structure collapsed to form galaxies and clusters, it was later applied to the mass deficit in spiral galaxies and galaxy clusters. Since then it has had many in many independent tests. Cold dark matter models successfully predicted the perturbations in the cosmic microwave background, something no alternative model can do even now. And then there are examples like the Bullet cluster where the gravitational lensing and normal matter are offset, something which is almost impossible to have if you believe these some modified gravity model instead of dark matter. CDM is also consistent with all we know of large scale structure.
It's easy to say "I don't believe in it", it's very difficult to build a model that can replace it.
>How do they know it (along with dark energy) make up 97% of the universe?
It's based on fitting all the observational data with the model. Pic related is one of the most powerful datasets, the CMB power spectrum. It shows the fluctuations when the universe was only 3000,000 years old, the sound waves that propagate back then are sensitive to the amount of normal matter and dark matter. This data is incompatible with it just being normal matter, and so are other tests. So based on fitting the data, the relative densities can be esimated.

>>15846229
>This data is incompatible with it just being normal matter, and so are other tests
Why do astrolets fixate on muh dark energy? It’s just the cosmological term in the Einstein-Hilbert action. Asking where it comes from is like asking where all other constants like Yukawa couplings come from. What is spooky about it? It was predicted over a century ago. And unlike Yukawa couplings, the cosmological term has a simple structure. Why the Yukawa couplings are in the adjoint representation of the flavor group is a much more puzzling question.

>>15846235
Probably the name. A non-zero cosmological constant is not exotic within GR, but the value is potentially problematic from a quantum field theory perspective. The value of the vacuum energy density from naive calculations is ~100 orders of magnitude higher than the observed cosmological value of Lambda. These calculations obviously don't involve quantum gravty and are not rigorous, but it is difficult to imagine it cancelling down to such a small value.

>>15846082
>it's basically a hypothesis
its "factual" dogma, anyone who challenges the existence of dark matter has their career ended via abuse of the peer review system. this is because doubting the dark matter dogma is also antisemiticly challenging the pet theories of the atheist jew god of soiyence, the infallible st. einstein, which is in turn because dark matter was invented to make observations match predictions of einstein's theories

>>15846082
>nothing, it's basically a hypothesis
you really can't call this a hypothesis cause it's just a name for observations we made that galaxies behave differently that we would assume by their mass we can see in electromagnetic spectrum, so there is some kind of things that interact gravitationally (i.e. some kind of matter probably) but not electromagnetically (so it's "dark")

and it doesn't make up "97% of the universe", don't know where you got that number, even combined with dark energy (which is a different thing, in fact acting against gravity) its more like 95%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI

>>15846306
>I know everything about the entire universe down to minute percentages
you don't, you only imagine that you do because you're a cringoid with a severe personality disorder and delusions of grandiosity

>>15846320
>I know everything about the entire universe
talking about dark matter is literally saying that we have no idea about most of the universe

>>15845946
>"spirits did it!"
>"god did it!"
>"dark matter did it!"
This is what happens when your field is not susceptible to experimentation due to technological limitations.
You start making shit up to conserve your current world view.

>>15846320
>>15846322
>a ball was rolling 10m/s initially, but then sped up so there seemed to be a force acting on a ball that we don't know about
>NOOO YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT, YOU'RE NOT OMNISCIENT

>>15846354
It's sad that /sci/ can relate to /b/ memes. 2016 was a mistake.

>>15846364
Ok scorpian

So the Internet wasn't with the government

And all on that track

Plus the fair game and the shit you tripped over

For what you did you will now do 1000 years worth and you will go fully extinct after. I don't care about that

>>15846364
I'll be waiting.

>>15846354
>ball A was rolling in air
>ball B was rolling in water
>NOOO YOU DON'T NEED TO DO EXPERIMENTS I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE WITH MY TELESCOPE I'M OMNISCIENT

>>15846374
>you have to roll the ball yourself to know how it behaves, observation don't tell you nuthin

>>15846376
>you have to roll the ball yourself
>implying there was a rolling ball
The only thing rolling were your eyeballs over a still image.

>>15845946
Ærth is flat and stationary with a dome. Dark Matter doesn't exist. Dark Energy is a complete meme. Board is full of science golems.

>>15846383
>how on earth could you say what's known and what's unknown from a still image

>>15845946
it doesnt exist. its just a figment of their imagination they use to justify the fact that their equations dont work.

same thing with dark energy

>>15845946
It slowed down the Pioneer Spacecraft when they were heading out of the solar system.

>>15846396
>

>>15846393
>right, but IF we asume the balls are rolling and they are rolling in air then..
Applying known physics to an unknown physical environment = fantasy.
It was fantasy when your predecessors were extrapolating from the Bible and it doesn't make it any less fantasy now that you are extrapolating from physics textbooks.
Hell without experiments you can't even objectively defend your cosmology model over a magic dome some anon brought up in another thread.

>>15845946
>How exactly do physicists know it exists?
They observe similar looking galaxies behave differently, and the simplest answer is that some of them must have something the others don't, that we can't see.

>>15846301
>da jooz
go back retard

>>15846436
>Applying known physics to an unknown physical environment = fantasy.
what do you mean exactly when you say "unknown physical environment"? do you think physics doesn't apply to the universe outside the solar system? even if that's the case (against copernican principle) the postulates are still falsifiable and verifiable
if you know about more probable explanation to galaxies rotation curves, velocity dispersions and gravitational lensing I'd love to read about it

>>15846322
dark matter doesn't ask me to share my wealth with the jews though

>>15846391
>Ærth is flat and stationary with a dome.
honestly though, why isn't this an instant ban? And why there's still no global rule about keeping polshit on pol?

>>15846458
>what do you mean exactly when you say "unknown physical environment"?
It means exactly that, unknown.
>even if that's the case..
If it's unknown and not interactable then all your postulates are not verifiable.
>if you know about more probable explanation
I don't because I don't have an alien saucer in my garage to go out there and verify anything.
I also happen to know you don't have one either.

>>15846482
do you make some assumptions about countries or continents you've never been on or do you treat their physical environments as unknown as well and screech autistically when someone talks about events elsewhere, because how could they know anything about living there?

>>15846436
>Hell without experiments you can't even objectively defend your cosmology model over a magic dome some anon brought up in another thread.
Read that thread again. You can certainly defend it. A real cosmological model makes predictions. A magic dome predicts anything could happen, which makes it useless. A model which is consistent with anything has no predictive value, it doesn't even predict if the Sun will rise tomorrow. But the gravitational solar system can.

>>15846488
It's not just space either. Each new moment is "unknown". No one can test if the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow, and yet we get along just fine. If you take the logic that you can assume nothing then all of science breaks down.

>>15846502
>countries or continents you've never been on
Equivocation, you could go to said place to verify.
>No one can test if the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow
Equivocation, you could conduct a test tomorrow.

There is something called reasonability. For someone hundreds of year ago, it's resonable to assume physics work the same in his home or in another continent he could physically visit but it would not be reasonable to assume it works the same above atmosphere where he could not (and indeed a ball would not drop in space like he think it would based on his limited knowledge)
Same with us today. It's reasonable to assume known physics works more or less in near space today or tomorrow but there comes a point when streaching that resonability becomes fantasy.
Modern cosmology went way past that limit.

>>15846537
>Equivocation, you could conduct a test tomorrow.
But you haven't, and yet it's quite natural to assume the physics is no different.

>There is something called reasonability. For someone hundreds of year ago, it's resonable to assume physics work the same in his home or in another continent he could physically visit but it would not be reasonable to assume it works the same above atmosphere where he could not
And yet great advances in physics came from extrapolating laws determined on the Earth to the unknown.
>Same with us today. It's reasonable to assume known physics works more or less in near space today or tomorrow but there comes a point when streaching that resonability becomes fantasy.
>near space
And how do you objectively define where is this horizon of extrapolation is? Let's see your calculation.

>>15846537
>you could go to said place to verify
>you could conduct a test tomorrow
so do you wait until you see and verify experimentally every phenomenon you reason about? or do usually assume that worlds runs more or less the same outside your basement?

>There is something called reasonability
is there now

>there comes a point when streaching that resonability becomes fantasy
why? where is that point exactly?

>>15846464
This board is already heavily censored. They literally banned that phrase and the reason why I had to use special characters. The worst part is the golems like you support this blatant censorship. Disgusting cattle.

>>15846583
what are you doing on /sci/?

>>15846246
>The value of the vacuum energy density from naive calculations is ~100 orders of magnitude higher than the observed cosmological value of Lambda
There are exactly zero calculations in QFT that compute the cosmological constant for you. The commonly sited “mismatch” simply reflects the fact that the Higgs vacuum expectation value is not the same as the cosmological constant. Absolutely nothing surprising here as the former arises from spin 0 field dynamics, while the latter from spin 2 dynamics. The commonly sited “fine-tuning” problem is a brainlet take as there is absolutely nothing wrong with small or large constants of nature. Nobody complains about the smallness of the Planck constant or the largeness of the speed of light as “unnatural.” Same for the Higgs mass “fine-tuning” btw. We measure the renormalized mass, not the bare one, so nobody “cranks it up” in the first place. The sensitivity to large scales simply reflects that QFT perturbation theory at the end of the day is just that; it’s an approximation to a true non-perturbative result.

>>15846596
To remind you what a dumb worthless sciencemaggot you are.

>>15846354
you only glomed on to the dark matter stories because you're a cringoid with a severe personality disorder and delusions of grandiosity and your self serving belief in phantom matter is just a way for you to be able to claim that you're a special snowflake with omniscient knowledge of eternity

>Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.

>>15846119
Because thats how much mass should be there but isn't, the galaxys would drift apart according to our standard model without the magic mystery mass holding it together

>>15846542
>>15846543
>reasonability
>what limit is that/how do you objectively define..etc.
The limit where you can't conduct experiments to verify your conclusions.
The point where science becomes not-so-science.

>>15845946
dark matter + dark energy = aether

>>15847329
>The limit where you can't conduct experiments to verify your conclusions.
But where is this?

In the 1600s people extrapolated physics to the Solar System. Despite the fact that back then these people had no concept that it would ever be possible to go there. And yet classical gravitational was able to accurately explain and predict observations. According to you this is "fantasy", and yet these same laws were sufficient for to guide spacecraft three and a half centuries later. But by your definition this is all "not-so-science", which seems contracted by the fact it worked.

>>15847329
to verify your conclusions you only need falsifiable, verifiable predictions

>>15847832
The guided space craft, among other EXPERIMENTS, is what verified the theories, not your faith in physics models.
And if hypothetically present physics models failed to guide the crafts accurately, we would have known physics is somehow different and would have needed to adjust said models.
This would be science and this is only possible when actual EXPERIMENTS could have been conducted, like guiding a spacecraft.
Modern cosmology on the other hand is extrapolating present physics onto literal still images that are so far removed from possible experiments it's sci-fi.
It could be completely correct or it could be complete horseshit, we'll never know, because I don't have an alien spaceship and neither do you.
>>15847882
>predictions
Predicting what, how graphics might change when you zoom in the resolutions on your still images?
Everybody and their grandmother knows nature follow geometric patterns. Just because you can predict said patterns does not automatically mean you actually know what those things you are looking at are.

>>15848075
>in the resolutions on your still images?
I'm not sure if you still don't understand where dark matter notion came from or you think Doppler effect is some joooish trick

>>15848075

>EXPERIMENTS, is what verified the theories, not your faith in physics models.
What exactly is the difference between measuring the course of a spacecraft vs measuring the course of a planet?
>And if hypothetically present physics models failed to guide the crafts accurately, we would have known physics is somehow different and would have needed to adjust said models.
But it didn't. How were they able to figure all the physics out without a single experiment. Astronomers and physicists figured out the solar system long before any spacecraft. How was this possible if they couldn't do science at all? And why have spacecraft failed to find any new understanding of gravity?
>It could be completely correct or it could be complete horseshit, we'll never know, because I don't have an alien spaceship and neither do you.
The same logic applies to the solar system, and yet it was a solved problem before a single "experiment".

>>15848140

>>15848075
downward spiral it's all a downward spiral, bhahahaha

>>15846082
>it's basically a hypothesis
its "factual" dogma, anyone who challenges the existence of dark matter has their career ended via abuse of the peer review system. this is because doubting the dark matter dogma is also antisemiticly challenging the pet theories of the atheist jew god of soiyence, the infallible st. einstein, which is in turn because dark matter was invented to make observations match predictions of einstein's theories

>>15848790
>anyone who challenges the existence of dark matter has their career ended
interesting, any names of people who dared?

You know how mercury orbits the fastest and pluto is really slow?
Well at the galaxy level, the stars at the edge seem to be going as fast as the ones at the centre. We can see how the mass is concentrated at the centre, so the edges should be slower. So there must be matter we can't see spread out across the galaxy that means it's not all concentrated at the centre

>>15848831
Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Sabine, Verlinde...
Oh, but strangely none of them lost their career.

>>15848140
>What exactly is the difference between measuring the course of a spacecraft vs measuring the course of a planet?
You know the hunk of metal is a spacecraft because you interacted with it.
You don't know the dot/number on your read out is a planet because you never did or could interact with that.
>Astronomers and physicists figured out the solar system long before any spacecraft.
Which ones. Plenty of astronomers in ancient society can predict celestrial movement with dead on accuracy.
They also claim the stars are deity and spirits and a million other things.
>But it didn't. How were they able to figure all the physics out without a single experiment.
Their assumption about near space turns out to be accurate; they got lucky.
That's like saying how is a medieval man is able to figure out a ball would still fall to earth from above the clouds, when they couldn't fly to conduct a single experiment; they got lucky with their assumptions.
They stop getting lucky when that ball is in outter space.
>The same logic applies to the solar system
I personally give a pass to things in the solar system we haven't interacted/experimented with under "reasonability", just like that medieval man would to things above the clouds.
Anything exponentially further out my skepticism also start to grow exponentially.

>>15849220
naw man you just a hater. You were stardust and shit

>>15849220
>You don't know the dot/number on your read out is a planet because you never did or could interact with that.
But your spacecraft has its trajectory calculated based on the gravitational effects of those planets. If you cannot be sure these objects are even planets then any result from there is meaningless.
>Which ones. Plenty of astronomers in ancient society can predict celestrial movement with dead on accuracy.
Newton, Kepler, Einstein.
>Their assumption about near space turns out to be accurate; they got lucky.
Or science can work with observations alone.
>I personally give a pass to things in the solar system we haven't interacted/experimented with under "reasonability"
Oh look, your objective horizon shifts again. And now this is limit is completely without justification, based on your personal feelings. That isn't science. There is no magical wall at 1000 AU, the observations get harder but they don't fundamentally change. As soon as you accept that observations alone were sufficient to solve the dynamics of the solar system you admit that there is no requirement to have "experiments".

>>15849750
Strange, how come they can't get a satellite to maintain an unpowered stable orbit then? Hmm guess the science is just wrong.

>>15849772
???

>>15849220
>I personally give a pass to things in the solar system
CALL NASA, WE HAVE A PASS

>>15849750
>sending crafts to planets in the solar system
Talking about the stars and "planets" orbiting them.
Why, did you sent spacecrafts to those while everybody weren't looking?
>Or science can work with observations alone.
Brilliant, every field can just use telescope and microscope from now on. Interaction and experimentations are unnecessary.
>Oh look, your objective horizon shifts again.
My horizon never shifted and I never said any horizon is objective. Everybody have their own subjective level of skepticism and gullibility and I subjectively placed mine at the edge of the solar system.
Some people simply find it extremely gullible to conclude we know for sure how physics works in rest of the observable universe when we only ever interacted with this rock we are on for a cosmic eyeblink.
It's not an objective fact but a subjective opinion. You are very welcome to disregard it.

>>15849853
>Why, did you sent spacecrafts to those while everybody weren't looking?
Funny, no spacecraft reached a planet for the first time to find out the planet wasn't real.

>My horizon never shifted and I never said any horizon is objective.
It definitely did.
>it would not be reasonable to assume it works the same above atmosphere
>I personally give a pass to things in the solar system
And if it's not objective then it isn't science.

> Everybody have their own subjective level of skepticism
What you actually said:
>Applying known physics to an unknown physical environment = fantasy.
Not just skepticism, out right denial that it can be scientific at all. You're desperately backpedaling.

> we know for sure how physics works in rest of the observable universe
And who said, in what paper? Do you think names like "dark matter" and "dark energy" give the impression that everything is understood? This is just a strawman.

>>15845946
its made up like 80% of modern physics

>>15849917
>>My horizon never shifted and I never said any horizon is objective.
>It definitely did.
>>it would not be reasonable to assume it works the same above atmosphere
>>I personally give a pass to things in the solar system
>And if it's not objective then it isn't science.
NTA but he's being pretty clear here. He thinks it's not reasonable to make those assumptions but he personally is willing to extend his credulity to the outer edge of the solar system.

>>15849917
>Funny, no spacecraft reached a planet for the first time to find out the planet wasn't real.
It is funny.
How many planets did we send out a spacecraft to?
>And if it's not objective then it isn't science.
Never said my personal opinion of extending my credulity to the edge of the solar system is science.
Tell you what, you ever send a spacecraft to a star, I'll extend my credulity astronomically more.
>>Applying known physics to an unknown physical environment = fantasy.
>>Everybody have their own subjective level of skepticism
I don't see the contradiction. Given my own subjective level of skepticism, you applying known physics to an unknown physical environment, is fantasy.
To some who is biblically faithful to the current physics model and environment, then this excerise is not a fantasy but a certainty.
>who said we know for sure how physics works in rest of the observable universe?
I speak only my impression. Everybody else can judge for themselves the degree cosmologists is claiming, insinuating, how much they know about the observable universe from its inception to its inevitable end.

>>15849992
>Never said my personal opinion of extending my credulity to the edge of the solar system is science.
If you're speaking purely on the basis of your own subjective opinion then you should say so, from the start. You certainly shouldn't get into a stupid debate over many days if all it comes down to is your opinion.
>Given my own subjective level of skepticism, you applying known physics to an unknown physical environment, is fantasy.
Despite that as a matter of historical fact; it worked just fine. It clearly isn't fantasy. When you cling to your subjective opinions over the facts you have crossed the rationality event horizon.

>>15850013
>Despite that as a matter of historical fact; it worked just fine.
Everything works fine historically until it doesn't.
Especially when the sample size can be counted on my fingers while the zeroes in the population size overload a calculator.

>>15849992
>applying known physics to an unknown physical environment, is fantasy.
It's a fantasy that seems to work. Maths checks out. Galaxies and stars are what we'd guess they should be. Gravitional lensing shows us supernovas where we thought it would.

Even as personal, subjective, arbitrary threshold for what we think we now the boundaries of solar system seem like a weird choice. Why there? You're not really capable of proving that anything other than you exist and everything you experience isn't an illusion. Why solar system specifically? Why not everything you can't see in the moment? Why do you think solar system is reasonable?

Large scale astrophysics seem pretty mundane compared to quantum mechanics. Virtually all potential implications of QM are fucking bonkers. A fantasy. Yet our models seems to work and give us predictable results. Science is a fantasy that gives us relatively reliable answers.

>>15850138
>It's a fantasy that seems to work. Maths checks out. Galaxies and stars are what we'd guess they should be. Gravitional lensing shows us supernovas where we thought it would.
See >>15848075.
You are predicating still geometric patterns. What those pattern and graphics are is anybody's guess until interaction actually occurs.
If your assumption about the physical environment hold, then they are suns and galaxies and novas.
If your assumption about the physical environment don't hold, then god knows what the hell it is you are actually looking at. Maybe something beyond our wildest imagination.
>why not go full schzio
Personal preference.
>but QM also did it
Nobody is questioning your astrophyical graphic predictions just as nobody is questioning QM data predictions.
Your astrophyical interpretations on the otherhand of what those things you are looking at are is questioned the same as QM interpretations.

>>15850157
>You are predicating still geometric patterns
You know that these patterns have measurable speed that can be determined due to redshift and spectroscopy, right?
>Maybe something beyond our wildest imagination
Yeah, maybe it's all a new kind of cheese.
>Personal preference.
That was clear from the beginning, I hoped you can explain what that preference is built on.
>your astrophyical graphic predictions
>Your astrophyical interpretations
I can't really say they are mine, I'm just a figment of your imagination that you observe.

>>15850157
>If your assumption about the physical environment don't hold, then god knows what the hell it is you are actually looking at. Maybe something beyond our wildest imagination.
But if that were the case there is no reason it should match predictions.
>Your astrophyical interpretations on the otherhand of what those things you are looking at are is questioned the same as QM interpretations.
Nope. Interpretations of QM are indistinguishable by construction, and they are interpretations of the same equations. Models of astrophysical effects are not. There is no alternative model of astrophysics where stars are not stars.

>>15845946
No one in this thread saying it doesn't exist knows any physics.

>>15850197
>You know that these patterns have measurable speed that can be determined due to redshift and spectroscopy, right?
>measurable speed
Really, I thought we are looking at still images?
Did you actually observe and measure celestial movement out there among the stars during your brief human life span or is this conclusion another one of your..extrapolations?
>Yeah, maybe it's all a new kind of cheese.
So says the medieval man when told about surface of Mars.
>I hoped you can explain what that preference is built on
We managed to send spacecrafts to a handful of rocks here in the system. This successful experimentation subjectively confirms to me physics at least as we currently know them works the same in this solar system.
>I can't really say they are mine, I'm just a figment of your imagination that you observe.
Oh we going there? Are YOU capable of objectively proving that anything other than you exist and everything you experience isn't an illusion?
Or are all your accepted conclusions a personal preference?

>>15850233
>But if that were the case there is no reason it should match predictions.
Plenty of matching patterns in just currently known nature are between things that have no apparent reason or business it should match.
It's the reason why math somehow is such a good predicator of reality.
>Models of astrophysical effects are not (open to interpretations). There is no alternative model of astrophysics where stars are not stars (suns)
There is no alternative explanation on the market does not automatically exalt your explanation above interpretations.
Especially since no one ever interacted with anything in your interpretations.

>>15850701
yeah, I had some hopes for Milgrom's modified Newton but it seems that's bullshit now
https://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2023/11/more-on-wide-binaries-and-mond.html

>>15848845
The solar system is minutely small compared to the Hubble constant. So small that the Hubble constant is a non-factor in calculating orbits and Newtonian mechanics produces accurate results.
On the scale of a galaxy, the Hubble constant is not a negligibly small factor. At the scale of Pluto's orbit, the Hubble constant is worth about 1 cm/s of acceleration, at the scale of of the outer edge of a spiral galaxy that acceleration is on the order of 3 km/s.
As a result, the concept of circular or elliptical orbits in spiral galaxies that you're referring to is oversimplified fiction.

>>15850739
>Really, I thought we are looking at still images?
You really know nothing about the topic. And yet here you are, telling everyone you know better. Yes stars are seen to move, exoplanets too.

>>15850753
>Plenty of matching patterns in just currently known nature are between things that have no apparent reason or business it should match
Such as?
>There is no alternative explanation on the market does not automatically exalt your explanation above interpretations.
They're not interpretations, they're physical models.

>>15850798
> telling everyone you know better
Did I say that?
Obviously if you spend your life gazing at the sky you'll know more about celestial movement than those who don't.
Nonetheless you are still stuck on the ground like everybody else.
So until we actually interact with one of those..dots, I simply reserve my own personal judgement on what they are.
>such as
Already posted a sample pic. If nature do not follow mathmatical patterns why do you think math works?
>They're not interpretations, they're physical models.
Your graphics prediction mechanism are models.
Your claim on what those graphics are, given no human have ever had interaction with, are interpretations.

>>15850798
that would be the easiest thing in the world to shoop, its just dots. how come """"bernard's star"""" stays the same brightness in each frame, but the other stars undergo dramatic changes in brightness in each frame? why is your evidence so glaringly fake?
its pretty much 100% guaranteed that you have never even seen """"bernard's star"""", you just took some faked evidence off some website and chose to believe in it even though it has glaring flaws and is clearly fake. you didn't put even the slightest amount of effort or thought into verifying that what you saw was real. you have no critical thinking ability, your iq is probably on the fairly low side, you've probably never even looked through a telescope, yet you fancy yourself an astronomy expert.

>>15852476
Shoop'd or not shoop'd it doesn't matter.
Nobody has ever been to a star, that's the fact that matters.
Mayan priests were expert astronomers. They can leverage the accuracy of their astronomical models to predict celestial movement and eclipses to convince the rest of the population the legitimacy of their intepretation that what they are seeing in the sky are spirits and gods and could get away with even human sacrifices.
It's a game that's been played for thousands of years and it's a game that's still playing now.
Now the intepretation isn't they are spirits and gods, now they are suns and planets just like this one, and other incredible things like black holes and quasars.
Except there is still just that one little problem.
No one has yet been, to a star.

>>15847312
Sounds like our understanding of gravity is the problem, not the extra mass.

>>15845946
These threads always bring out the retards and things would probably be different it it had a different name other than "dark xxx" but physicists aren't very good with names. They called it "dark" because they have no idea what it is and as far as I'm aware nobody claims that they do. If the retards who visit this board could just get that through their heads we wouldn't be having these daily threads of "hurrr scientists are stupid, they made it up"

>How exactly do physicists know it exists?
Nobody knows it exists or what it even is. It's an observed gravitational effect that looks exactly like mass where no mass can be seen.
>What proves it existence?
This gravitational effect can be observed all throughout the universe and can even lens light like mass does.
>How do they know it (along with dark energy) make up 97% of the universe?
It sounds strange but they can "weigh" the universe and give results with a straight face. This is something you'll have to research yourself because it's a deep rabbit hole.
>It doesn't make any sense to me.
Why should it? Quantum physics doesn't make sense to anyone yet it's responsible for the absolute best predictions humans can make.
The universe is weird and mysterious and we are aware of the tiny part of it we evolved to survive in.
Things obviously get a whole lot weirder and the rabbit hole no doubt gets deeper and weirder. Things we are no capable of imagining .
It could be completely rational with perfect logical beauty and not make any sense to us. it's up to us to keep trying, forever and ever.
>Seems like they just pulled it out of their asses.
They are making the best conclusions they can with observable data and known physical laws that have proven extremely reliable.
The idea that physicists have just said "oh that's dark matter, case closed" is as fucking retarded as the people who dismiss it based on their own retarded emotions/biblical beliefs

>>15852683
>They called it "dark" because they have no idea what it is and as far as I'm aware nobody claims that they do.
They claim it's matter that doesn't interact with any fundamental forces except gravity. That's a big leap of logic that ignores a tremendous amount of plausible explanations.

>>15852688
It's just a name, because it behaves exactly like matter and can be treated as if it were.
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT IS.
It, alongside the energy accelerating the expansion, are the biggest current mysteries in physics. People are making careers trying to understand these things.
I swear, it's just the name that triggers people.
Do you also deny quantum physics? That's probably weirder and makes less sense

>>15852695
>It, alongside the energy accelerating the expansion, are the biggest current mysteries in physics. People are making careers trying to understand these things.
The issue is that both of these problems come from underlying assumptions that haven't been thoroughly vetted themselves. If the universe isn't expanding and redshift is related to a physical phenomenon like tired light or diffuse plasma or any of the dozens of other equally explanatory theories then you have to junk all the work anyway.

>b..but QM is weirder!
Love how certain individuals keep wanting to drag particle physics down with them everytime the mob comes knocking.
However weird the possible implications, QM is based on actual experiments.
Don't compare actual science to gazing at the night sky at things you never interacted with or possibly never will.

>>15852701
The explanatory scope and power of the alternative theories is extremely limited. To fit our actual observations they're also far more nuanced and less elegant.

When we talk about Newtown law about universal gravity, we know that planets and other bodies must attract each other. But when it comes to global things such as a whole galaxy, it doesn't work. It simply expands. So physicists need some explanation, and the only one they found is that there's some dark energy or/and dark matter, that works in the opposite way. There is a lot of free space in cosmos, so physicists decided to calculate a approximate amount of that dark matter. So the calculation says that there's 97% of dark matter in the space.

>>15852880
>97%
If that's not the biggest red flag things might be operating under a different set of physics out there I don't know what is.

>>15852880
>>15852910
>there's 97% of dark matter in the space
That sentence would have been wrong even if it wasn't formulated in such a retarded way.
Current consensus is that about 95% of energy content of space in our calculations is stuff we know almost nothing, i.e. dark energy and dark matter. Dark energy is a fancy name for something that causes expansion rate to accelerate, dark matter is a fancy name for something that makes gravity in galaxies stronger than it would seem from our observations of matter that we can see in the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e. baryonic matter that planets and stars are made of aka the rest 5% of the universe energy content we know about).
>>15852688
>They claim it's matter that doesn't interact with any fundamental forces except gravity
The claim is that it doesn't interact through the electromagnetic force because we don't see it anywhere on the electromagnetic spectrum and doesn't seem to interact with itself, so no strong force. It may interact through the weak force, we don't know it yet.

"Dark matter" is simply a name for a thing that we know almost nothing about, except that there is SOMETHING. Comparing it to ancient gods is completely missing the point.

>>15845946
Based, I'm a black hole denier myself, shit just doesn't exist, there's zero proofs

>>15853391
>except that there is SOMETHING
>Comparing it to ancient gods is completely missing the point.
It's hitting the nail square on the head.
If I try to make a model of how a car would operate, but for said model of mine to work it need to assume the visible car is really only just 5% of the stuff and 95% of the stuff is "invisible", do I really know how the mechanics of the car actually work?
Might as well just say the car is been driven by spirits at this point.

>>15853425
from just looking at the car from outside you could assume that something drives the wheels, even if you don't see the engine

>>15853427
You could say that.
You could also say you don't understand how the car actually works.

>>15853425
>do I really know how the mechanics of the car actually work?
Well you can test it simply just by predicting and observing the future motion of the car.
A model where the car has extra mass is testable, "I don't know" is not.

>>15853444
>You could also say you don't understand how the car actually works.
And then what? How do you figure it out?

>>15853414
This is how pathetic /sci/ has become.

>>15853887
black holes are fake and gay. they're just a stupid comic book plot device, they're not real.

>>15853486
>A model where the car has extra mass is testable, "I don't know" is not.
A 2 ton car is been puppeted by a 38 ton invisible boogeyman, who also happens to fill rest of the empty road.
I think "I don't know" is the more honest answer at this point.
>And then what? How do you figure it out?
You go to said car and open the hood.
Who knows, maybe the car doesn't run on gas like all the other cars you have in your own garage.

>>15845946
No one said they "know" it exists, they merely suspect it does. You're a denier of something that may not even be real. Take your meds.

>>15846235
The fine-tuning problem/naturalness only applies to dimensionless quantities. Nobody ever complains about h or c being unnatural because you can always set them to 1. A dimensionless ratio being of the order of 10^120 is different.