[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 90 KB, 500x667, 1386474946744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210462 No.6210462 [Reply] [Original]

If we can define something as a concrete "law that arbitrarily exists but we cannot explain the true nature behind why it exists.", such as gravity - a force that just seems to "exist"....

Then how can we be sure the universe was created by the big bang? How do we know that there isnt another characteristic "law of blah blah" for systems such as the universe?

Example: Dark Energy/Dark Matter are the catalysts of the expansion and contraction cycle

If we don't even know a god fucking thing about dark energy and matter, then why the shit are we trying to say the universe came from nothing

It doesn't make sense for a universe to just "be nothing" and then "exist". It's much more logical to think of the universe as something that has always existed (Such as a particle: Even though the particle may have been formed by energy, it has still "always existed" since the big bang, and will continue to exist within the scope of the universe)

>> No.6210468

OP, what's the furthest education you've had, and how much Physics have you studied in your lifetime?

>> No.6210472

>>6210468
Well I'm a physics student in uni. My ideas are usually all over the place cause I lack structure, but I do understand the science behind it.

I'm just saying - how can we be conclusive about the big bang being the "inception" of the universe if we don't even know what the fuck is going on

>> No.6210478

>>6210472

Science is not conclusive about anything.

To suggest that the universe "came from" something begs the question: where did that "something" come from?

Something is very off about you for a "Physics student".

>> No.6210484

>>6210472
>I'm just saying - how can we be conclusive about the big bang being the "inception" of the universe if we don't even know what the fuck is going on
Well, it is a valid point to say "we don't know what the fuck is going on". The big bang is a guess.

First, the universe didn't come from "nothing". That's not the big bang theory. The theory discusses a primordial state of all matter and energy in the Universe being in a timeless and dimensionless state. There was no "space" and there was no "time". Everything was everywhere. Then suddenly space and time happened. It's poorly understood to say the least.

And yeah, dark matter is a fucking joke. The researchers should be ashamed.

>> No.6210488

>>6210484
>And yeah, dark matter is a fucking joke. The researchers should be ashamed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

>> No.6210485

>>6210472
>Well I'm a physics student in uni.
>Tropicana Coconut University

>> No.6210504

>>6210488
It's indirect evidence and it sucks.

http://www.universetoday.com/80955/red-dwarf-discovery-changes-everything/

>"Wow, looks like there are a fuckton more stars than we thought"

Or we can just say there's magical, unobservable "dark matter" in the universe.

Occam's Razor: is there mystery matter we can't explain or do we just lack information in general.

>> No.6210506

>>6210504

Actually, I remember reading this and wondering myself how it affected the Dark Matter hypothesis.

However, I'm not sure if it sufficiently stabilizes galaxies either.

>> No.6210511

>>6210504
>or do we just lack information in general.

You do understand that Dark Matter is not expected to exist with certainty. No scientific hypothesis or theory is considered "true" with supreme certainty.

It's a conservative explanation because we can only know conservatively what is going on with galaxies. We're trying to detect Dark Matter to see if the hypothesis is validated. If a better model supplants it, so be it.

>> No.6210518

>>6210504
This. A million times this.

Every time some neophyte starts talking about DM/DE my first response is "let me see the error bars on your non-luminous baryonic mater first".

>> No.6210527

>>6210506
It doesn't stabilize the galaxies. But the issue is, there are things in this universe we aren't aware of and more data needs to be collected.

Going off on a tangent about unobservable mystery matter is a complete waste of resources and funding.

They should have called it something like "Galaxy Gravity effect". By calling it an "effect" they could look into the actual cause rather than the ass-on-head approach of making up something and looking for it. Why the fuck is that even science?

>> No.6210536

>>6210506
>I remember reading this and wondering myself how it affected the Dark Matter hypothesis.
Dark matter researchers shat their pants realizing it'll be a matter of time before everyone calls them idiots and they've been wasting their time?

>> No.6210543

>>6210536

Or maybe it didn't substantially explain anything and research continued.

>> No.6210553

>>6210543
The dark matter issue is about unexplained mass and gravity effects.

Why the fuck would they invent a particle then reverse engineer its existence? So far, evidence for actual "dark matter" is non-existent. This is bad fucking science and I can't believe there is so much research into it.

>> No.6210570

>>6210553

There's not one particular kind of DM particle people are looking for. There is an array of candidate particles.

Frankly, the Higgs boson sounded like a kind of ridiculous idea to the layperson, but it turned out scientists had been thinking on their feet and evidence for its existence was found.

>> No.6210593

>>6210570
>There's not one particular kind of DM particle people are looking for. There is an array of candidate particles.
What if it's not a fucking particle! Jesus fuck, that's the problem with this "theory". They are observing a force or effect on GALAXIES, why the fuck would they start theorizing and looking for a particle? It's a novel idea and worth looking into, but not on this fucking scale.

This will be an embarrassment when the idea becomes obsolete. I'm not saying they will find a perfect explanation, but when will they have enough of this flimsy "evidence" based on a baseless idea? This is the equivalent of the "hollow earth" theory or assuming the world is flat.

>> No.6210603

>>6210593
it's actually more like the Aether Postulate, which while being wrong in some ways, has turned out to be right in others.

>> No.6210607

>>6210593
>why the fuck would they start theorizing and looking for a particle

Because forces are mediated by particles on the quantum level.

It's a lot less presumptuous to say it's an effect of gravity and therefore there may simply be more matter than we know about, than for instance drawing the conclusion that it's an entirely new force.

The observation is that galaxies should not behave gravitationally as they do considering the amount of known matter within them. Ergo, there may be more unknown matter contributing to the effect. Right now the hypothesis is still being tested and researched actively. You're deriding DM researchers for even having the gall to conduct research.

>> No.6210627

>>6210504

You have to keep in mind the enormous amount of matter that would need to be conjured up as previously unseen stars in order to make up the gap. Right now we think there's about 5.4 times as much dark matter as there is visible matter, so if visible matter is 5 units then dark matter is 27 units. Even if this new finding of red dwarf extrapolation added an enormous 60% to the amount of visible matter we calculate in the universe, that still is just 8 units and leaves 24 more units to be explained.

So as far as hypotheses go dark matter is our best explanation, it's the most consistent with what we observe. It would be much more contrary to current scientific understanding to find that there's actually 5.4 times as much visible matter in the observable universe that we somehow missed.

Regarding OP: the big bang theory does not state that the universe came from nothing. It states that at one point, 13.72 billion years ago, the universe was very hot and very condensed. I mean it's more complex, but that's the general idea. It doesn't go all the way to t0.

As for particles not being able to come into existence, do you know what light is? Photons pop into existence all the time, and they sometimes act like particles when they're feeling frisky.

>> No.6210633

>>6210607
>Because forces are mediated by particles on the quantum level.
>gravity particle
>speed particle
>time particle
no. Not everything is a particle.
>It's a lot less presumptuous to say it's an effect of gravity and therefore there may simply be more matter than we know about, than for instance drawing the conclusion that it's an entirely new force.
but fucking how? You don't make up something unobserved then try to observe it. That's sloppy. why make up a "new force" rather than just admit that we don't understand the forces we know exist.

I think the "DM researchers" should do research- on something else.

>The observation is that galaxies should not behave gravitationally as they do considering the amount of known matter within them. Ergo, there may be more unknown matter contributing to the effect.

Then they discovered billions more stars, no magic mystery particles and the trend seems to be we'll keep discovering more of the stuff we know rather than the magic we dream up.

>> No.6210639

>>6210627
>Right now we think there's about 5.4 times as much dark matter as there is visible matter, so if visible matter is 5 units then dark matter is 27 units. Even if this new finding of red dwarf extrapolation added an enormous 60% to the amount of visible matter we calculate in the universe, that still is just 8 units and leaves 24 more units to be explained.
The easiest conclusion is that we're just fucking wrong AND ignorant. That's a proper scientific conclusion. Making the leap to "dark matter" should be laughable. Why is it even discussed? Is the scientific community just embarrassed that they can't explain something so big so they just start making up convoluted shit?

>> No.6210645

>>6210633
>gravity particle

May be necessary to explain gravitation on the quantum level.

>speed, time

Not forces.

>You don't make up something unobserved then try to observe it.

A hypothesis is EXACTLY this: a guess. That's all it can be. You make your guess, and you test it. That's what's going on right now. Until a better guess is presented, research into DM will continue.

>why make up a "new force" rather than just admit that we don't understand the forces we know

I just said DM eschews the need to make up a new force. It considers gravity, fundamentally, to be the underlying principle here, but the volume of matter necessary to account for the gravitational phenomena of galaxies is not _apparently_ present in galaxies; thus, it's speculated that more matter than what he plainly see is in fact present.

>Then they discovered billions more stars

Still not enough to account for the effect.

You really sound like you don't understand this very well. Your questions come from absolutely the right place, but you steadfastly refuse to accept any other line of reasoning than "pfft yeah, those retarded scientists dude, they don't know shit".

>> No.6210647

>>6210627
>So as far as hypotheses go dark matter is our best explanation, it's the most consistent with what we observe.
Only it isn't. We haven't observed dark matter at all. We've observed an phenomena that we can't explain.

Fuck, if aliens made contact tomorrow all we'd have to do is tell them about "God" and "dark matter" and they'd never contact us again. It's like a theory made by Jaden fucking Smith.

>> No.6210653

>>6210462
>then why the shit are we trying to say
Hey OP, there isn't an absolute and finite answer. As we continue to scrutinize the world, the more we will know and the more theories will be either falsified or verified.

>> No.6210662

>>6210639

If a thing emits light then there is no known reason we shouldn't be able to observe that light with a telescope powerful enough, and we have some Very Large telescopes. We've observed enormous inconsistencies with astronomical object movement and their visible matter, and therefore hypothesized that there is matter which does not emit light. Why does this hypothesis seem so absurd to you?

>> No.6210661

>>6210645
>You really sound like you don't understand this very well.
I don't and neither do you or any other asshole on this Earth. That's the point I'm making. The dark matter discussion is nuts. It's people pushing an idea that is highly unlikely (as research shows) because there is no other explanation. It's borderline religion at this point.

The amount of time devoted to "research" into dark matter is taking away from research that would actually explain this phenomena. This is science's fountain of youth or holy grail. It's a mythical object of desire and a bunch of idiots are spending a lot of time and money looking for it.

>> No.6210676

>>6210661
>It's people pushing an idea that is highly unlikely (as research shows)

What makes you say it's highly unlikely? The model explains the observed phenomena quite well, what remains to be seen is whether the model itself describes something real.

>The amount of time devoted to "research" into dark matter is taking away from research that would actually explain this phenomena.

There is no known explanation. By your definition any explanation would be a grandiose, baseless guess, and all should be ruled out unless they're known beforehand (which is impossible to do UNTIL we've done experimental research). You're just not thinking this through at all.

>> No.6210678

>>6210662
>Why does this hypothesis seem so absurd to you?
Because the better explanation would be: "We've observed enormous inconsistencies with astronomical object movement and their visible matter, and therefore hypothesized that we have a poor understanding of astronomical object movement, observing visible matter and the forces connected to them. More research is required."

Making the leap to "a unobservable strange new matter" is where their shit falls apart. We don't know everything so making up something new is childish and stupid at best.

>> No.6210687

>>6210676
>What makes you say it's highly unlikely?
there is no evidence for any proposed "dark matter particle". Every test and all research shows nothing. We see the effects, but no substance.

I guess my biggest problem is that it's called "dark matter". It taints the research and it gives a bias to the understanding and theories being proposed. People are looking for matter, but hey, it might not be fucking matter!

>> No.6210688

>>6210678
>and therefore hypothesized that we have a poor understanding of astronomical object movement, observing visible matter and the forces connected to them

You don't make a hypothesis stating that you don't know something, dummy. You make the hypothesis BECAUSE you don't know something. The hypothesis is an educated guess representing an explanation for the observation. From there you move on to research.

How do you expect research to get done if nobody puts forth any models because they're not allowed to by your unnecessarily stringent permissions?

>> No.6210698

Hijacking OPs thread:
If the rate of the universe's expansion is accelerating, couldn't it have been 0 at one point even in an already formed, spacious universe? Perhaps we are expanding out of the husk of an old universe. Or maybe it even reversed previously, contracting to that 0 point.
The difference to the well known oscillation model is that I don't presume a singularity at the start of each cycle, it'd be regular space.

>> No.6210700

>>6210687
>Every test and all research shows nothing. We see the effects, but no substance.

It may be extremely difficult to produce Dark Matter. It may be a long time before any is detected, and conversely it may be a long time before the DM model is replaced by something more consistent, if it comes to that.

You're literally angry any inquiry is being made at all. You expect "hypotheses" to just be "we don't know!" and turn to some nondescript abstraction of "a bunch of research and science or whatever and shit" to answer the question.

>> No.6210709

>>6210698
>If the rate of the universe's expansion is accelerating, couldn't it have been 0 at one point even in an already formed, spacious universe?

...What?

>Perhaps we are expanding out of the husk of an old universe.

There is no trace of a prior or "parent" universe. If you propose there is, feel free to go ahead and test for the existence of one.

>> No.6210708

>>6210698
that's nice timmy now write it in math

>> No.6210707

>>6210688
>How do you expect research to get done if nobody puts forth any models because they're not allowed to by your unnecessarily stringent permissions?
By observing. Finding billions of more red dwarf stars was a very good step in the right direction. There's lots to observe before someone goes right the fuck off the rails and starts this shit-ass speculation. It's literally not done in any other scientific field on this scale.

>> No.6210712

>>6210700
>It may be a long time before any is detected, and conversely it may be a long time before the DM model is replaced by something more consistent, if it comes to that.
That sounds like some asshole researcher looking for grants for the rest of his life.
>"We might not find it until after I'm retired with a pension. Make the check out to ___"
What a crock of shit.

>> No.6210719

>>6210709
>There is no trace of a prior or "parent" universe. If you propose there is, feel free to go ahead and test for the existence of one.
>>6210698
No! Stop with this fucking speculation, and just god damn observe already.

Fucking fuck, scientists act like we can explain everything we can see.
>"since the observable universe is explained, lets make up some shit and talk about it!"
No! Bad science! Bad!

>> No.6210726

>>6210719
>No! Stop with this fucking speculation, and just god damn observe already.

The phenomenon is already observed. Acknowledging that it exists and there's nothing to be said about it isn't satisfactory.

>Fucking fuck, scientists act like we can explain everything we can see.

That's the goal of science: to explain observable phenomena. If you don't like it, study something else.

>> No.6210737

>>6210726
>That's the goal of science: to explain observable phenomena. If you don't like it, study something else.
but dark matter isn't observable phenomena. It's a baseless and loaded conjecture. We've only observed the gravity effects on galaxies and we don't know the cause.

Is the only reason why this is permissible is because astrophysics is closely affiliated with those theoretical physics loons? Is their nutso ilk bleeding into the hard science crowd?

>> No.6210743

>>6210737
>but dark matter isn't observable phenomena.

It may very well be observable, but these things aren't always so easy to observe. Your frenetic impatience helps nobody.

At least it's better than String Theory, which has literally no presently-conceivable method of verification.

>> No.6210745

>>6210719

There's a fundamental break in your reasoning. We can't just keep infinitely observing data and never forming hypotheses to explain the inconsistencies with this data and our current models.

I feel there's a misconception going on as well, as if you believe scientists looked at a single chart of data which was inconsistent. ALL of the data we've gathered on the movement of galaxies and galaxy clusters and superclusters has been inconsistent with our observations of visible mass. Additionally there is no known reason to believe that if light is emitted we would not be able to detect it. If any photons exist then by all current understandings we should be able to detect them. Therefore visible mass must not be the only mass which exists.

It's a perfectly reasonable avenue of research, a hypothesis drawn from very large amounts of data. At this point it doesn't make sense to wait for more data to come in before approaching avenues of research.

>"since the observable universe is explained"

No, you see this is exactly why we have the dark matter hypothesis. The observable universe has NOT been explained. Dark matter is currently the most likely hypothesis to bridge the gap between the vast inconsitencies of our current model of the universe, and what we observe of the universe.

>> No.6210746

>>6210743
>At least it's better than String Theory, which has literally no presently-conceivable method of verification.
I fucking HATE string theory. Dark matter is like string theory and phrenology had an ass baby.

>> No.6210749

OP Here. I was just using DM/DE as an EXAMPLE off the top of my head. it's not the basis of the concept I was presenting.

"Why" does a gravitational force exist? Why can we not have a straightforward energy system that doesn't contain such a strange law?

Gravity's peculiarity is why I am sceptical about the true nature of the universe. If gravity is a strange, DEFINITE, phenomena (much like most of the laws in the universe), and is such a phenomena that its exactitude eluded us until Newton; Then why do we expect inferences about the dawn and end of the universe to be "straightforward"?

How can we try to conclude what we have not yet enough information to comprehend?

I think everybody has put on their "hurr nerd" glasses and jumped on the big bang "creation of the uniderp" a little bit too hard. Studying patterns in physics, you can easily see that things are never just "created". They have always existed, and like the ecosystems of molecules among the ecosystems of animals among the solar systems of stars, the particles that make them up will oscillate through the cycle of creation and destruction forever.

>> No.6210751

>>6210746

Dark Matter is above string theory for reasons explained >>6210745 here. ST makes assumptions about the underlying mechanisms behind the forces and particle families, whereas DM seeks to more humbly explain a readily observed discrepancy between the models we currently have and the observation.

Is Phrenology that skull-science shit? Either way, I don't particularly care for String Theory either. It doesn't matter to me how "elegant" String theorists advertise it as being.

>> No.6210752

>>6210745
>Therefore visible mass must not be the only mass which exists.
OR we have a poor understanding of the data and of the universe. This "therefore" shit is stupid.

This reminds me of reading about the hundreds and thousands of books and research on the Sistine Chapel. People for centuries wrote about Michelangelo's muted and dull color pallet- until they fucking cleaned the thing and realized he used bright saturated colors.

All of that research was thrown right into the trash. It was ridiculous how much research, study and time went into the work. I wonder if the scientific community, after devoting as much time and money into "dark matter" if they'll be able to suck it up and admit they're delusional and wrong when they find out how to explain it.

>> No.6210754

>>6210749
>OP Here. I was just using DM/DE as an EXAMPLE off the top of my head. it's not the basis of the concept I was presenting.
Fuck off Op, we're talking here. Your premise sucked a dick and no one cares.

>> No.6210756

>>6210745
OR we could be trying to measure the universe millions of light years away as fucking monkeys with electric powered mirrors

the problem with dark energy/dark matter lays in the fact that we've never been off this god damn planet long enough to really get into the field of space to test shit. All of our data comes from faggot telescopes, yielding us theories built on what we think we know about light

>> No.6210758

>>6210749
>"Why" does a gravitational force exist? Why can we not have a straightforward energy system that doesn't contain such a strange law?

I'm really not sure what you seek to accomplish by asking this question. It's like walking outside one day, noticing that it's raining, and asking "_Why_ is it raining today? Yes, I understand the water cycle, cloud formation, condensation into droplets, and gravity, but _why_ must today be a rainy one?" It's really kind of missing the point.

Gravity is better understood by Einstein's model of General Relativity, by the way. Whether or not you're comfortable /accepting/ that gravity is a property of the universe, it very much is, and GR predicts with unparalleled accuracy how masses gravitationally interact with one another in theory and in observable practice.

You may have heard of the "curvature" of space-time before. This describes the particular way in which masses deform the underlying space-time metric, which in turn causes the world-lines of nearby matter to be curved toward the mass. If you think this sounds utterly and fantastically crazy your skepticism is in the right place - but believe it or not, space and time dilation and contraction are phenomena which have been experimentally verified.

>> No.6210759

>>6210751
>whereas DM seeks to more humbly explain a readily observed discrepancy between the models we currently have and the observation.
Oh fuck you. There is nothing "humble" about dark matter. There is supposedly a matter that can't be seen, doesn't interact with other matter, yet influences all normal matter and weighs a fuckton more than normal matter or is in an absurdly higher quantity than normal matter.

WIMPs, MACHOs, whatever. Might as well be "Jesus matter". Fuck it. There is NOTHING humble about it. It drives the speculation truck right off the fucking cliff. Too much conjecture and speculation and not enough data to speak about it.

>> No.6210760

>>6210749

Your statement about existence is true in classical physics, but quantum mechanics changes that. Besides, I pointed out earlier that photons do not exist before they are emitted. They pop into existence all the time, without having existed beforehand.

We don't draw conclusions absolutely. "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." The fact of the matter is that the evidence for the big bang theory is quite sufficient to be believable, which is why we've awarded it the honorary title of Theory.

>> No.6210761

>>6210756
Thank you anon. Thank you. I feel like I'm alone with these dark matter freaks.

>> No.6210762

>>6210760
>photons do not exist before they are emitted
is exactly the same as saying
>you do not exist before your creation

google: wat is energy

>> No.6210765

>>6210758
>You may have heard of the "curvature" of space-time before. This describes the particular way in which masses deform the underlying space-time metric, which in turn causes the world-lines of nearby matter to be curved toward the mass. If you think this sounds utterly and fantastically crazy your skepticism is in the right place - but believe it or not, space and time dilation and contraction are phenomena which have been experimentally verified.
I like general relativity because it explains "how" and there is no speculation on "why". Einstein didn't like speculation. It's a childish exercise. It's for hippies with acid and pot.

>> No.6210764

>>6210759
>There is supposedly a matter that can't be seen, doesn't interact with other matter, yet influences all normal matter and weighs a fuckton more than normal matter or is in an absurdly higher quantity than normal matter.

Correct. And nobody, not even scientists - expect you to outright accept that Dark Matter really exists. This is exactly why they hope to detect it some how, and many groups are trying with a variety of methods and models to achieve this.

>Too much conjecture and speculation and not enough data to speak about it.

How can data be obtained without conducting the research you're lambasting? I called you impatient before - does it occur to you that your impatience might be rather imprudent? Do you expect scientists to discard models which aren't proven immediately?

>> No.6210767

>>6210756
>All of our data comes from faggot telescopes, yielding us theories built on what we think we know about light

Is this a joke? Do you have any idea about Astrophysics at all?

>> No.6210769

>>6210765

Why mock? I already described to you the futility of asking those kinds of impertinent, inapplicable questions.

>> No.6210770

>>6210764
>How can data be obtained without conducting the research you're lambasting? I called you impatient before - does it occur to you that your impatience might be rather imprudent? Do you expect scientists to discard models which aren't proven immediately?
I am an extremely patient person. I disagree with the premise of dark matter.

I think scientists will keep putting together puzzle pieces that will eventually squeeze out dark matter. Research into the effects of gravity in a galaxy, more stars and normal matter being discovered, black holes, phenomena related to the overall structure of existence, etc. etc. and one day, every little piece of this "dark matter" will be found with no fucking exotic matter and particles. Mark my words.

>> No.6210773

>>6210770
>Mark my words.

Considering your credentials are zip and your incredulity comes literally from not _wanting_ to believe in the model, I will not mark your words. I eagerly anticipate the day an explanation is put forth, however - be it Dark Matter or some alternative.

>> No.6210779

>>6210767
Do you? You can't just build an entire model from the universe on telescope based data and try to call it "accurate"

Sure, it's accurate relevant to you, but you are more than likely way fucking off

Meatbags trying to model the universe through a telescope is like people living on the moon trying to build a model for the earth (In comparisons of local complexity vs complexity of what you're trying to model)

>> No.6210782

>>6210773
You call me "impatient" but the scientific community at large can't let an unexplainable vacuum sit for a few decades without making up a magical particle to cover up inadequacies. Saying "we don't know" seems to really chap their ass.

>> No.6210787

>>6210759

It's not that dark matter does not interact with visible matter, it's that it interacts weakly enough that it doesn't emit photons. The reason it can be in absurdly high quantities compared to visible matter without being thus far observed is precisely because it interacts so weakly.

As an aside, I've been using "visible matter" to mean "matter which emits photons". Dark matter may be invisible in the sense that we could not detect it by photon emission, but that doesn't mean it would be undetectable.

>> No.6210788

>>6210779

You really have no idea what you're talking about at all. There's really nothing to be said that can address your unique brand of foolishness.

>>6210782

It's not merely a new phenomenon without explanation: it's an apparent gap in our established explanation. We therefore seek to improve our explanation.

>> No.6210794

>>6210787
This is such a crazy leap. Maybe we're not explaining gravity well enough? Why does it have to be this "weakly interacting, invisible matter"? Seems like someone wants research grants and keeps making excuses.

>"Where is it?"
>"Somewhere."
>"Why can't we see it?"
>"It's invisible!"
>"Oh come the fuck on."
>"It's weakly interacting! This is science, you wouldn't understand!"

>> No.6210796

>>6210788
>You really have no idea what you're talking about at all. There's really nothing to be said that can address your unique brand of foolishness.
So recently discovering that every galaxy has billions and billions of previously never observed stars has no effect on your opinion on "mystery, unseen matter" at all? as in, maybe we don't know everything, what we do know is poorly understood and we need more observation and data?

Why is that a more absurd belief than "dark matter"?

>> No.6210797

>>6210794
>Where is it?
>We haven't detected it yet. We're still looking.
>Wooooow you guys are sooo fucking greedy all you care about is research grants! All your "theories" and "experiments" are a bunch of bullshit, get real, scientists!

>> No.6210798

To all of your raging about the dark matter hypothesis:

MOND.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/

It is somewhat accessible. If you have any questions let me know. Modified Gravity Laws as an alternative to Dark Matter is my primary research as a grad student.

>> No.6210800

>>6210796
>So recently discovering that every galaxy has billions and billions of previously never observed stars has no effect on your opinion

The cumulative mass of these stars is not enough to explain the effect. It's a very small component of the larger picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf#Description_and_characteristics

>> No.6210802

>>6210762

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Are you trying to restate the law of conservation of energy? Yes, I understand that, and energy remains conserved. It is still true that photons do not exist before they are emitted, and cease to exist when they are absorbed.

I was responding specifically to the claim that, as OP put it, "you can easily see that things are never just "created". They have always existed . . ."

>> No.6210805

>>6210798
I like MOND. It actually makes sense. We've observed gravity but can't really explain it meaning we need more research and observation. No need to make up shit. It's a fantastic start and isn't baseless conjecture.

Question about MOND; so when two objects of about equal mass "orbit" each other creating a point of gravity between them- is that thought to be related to MOND? It's literally like a point of mass/gravity is created in the space between objects that interact gravitationally.

>> No.6210808

>>6210800
>The cumulative mass of these stars is not enough to explain the effect. It's a very small component of the larger picture.
But it explains some and now there's less room for "dark matter" and it's something that we've previously observed (red dwarfs). As the tend goes,
Observed phenomena: 1
Dark matter: 0

>> No.6210811

>>6210805
>We've observed gravity but can't really explain it meaning we need more research and observation.

That's not true. General Relativity explains gravity beautifully, and correctly predicts the observed relativistic properties of gravitation.

>No need to make up shit.

That is exactly what MoND does.

>It's a fantastic start and isn't baseless conjecture.

It is baseless conjecture.

>> No.6210814

>>6210811
No making up new, unobserved, unexplainable matter is baseless conjecture.

General relativity doesn't explain where gravity comes from it describes the nature of the force.

since you're all touchy, maybe MOND is onto something.

>> No.6210819

>>6210805
to fit the MOND parameters it would really depend on the mass and the distance. Assuming you're talking about high mass, low density, great distance - then yes, it could be within the realm of MOND or TeVeS, which better accounts for Gen Rel.

What drew me to MOND was my first lecture on DM. I had always assumed it was pretty much the truth, but just how weak the arguments were for the whole model astounded me. I can't help but feel the "invisible, undetectable" dark matter is a cop out for this situation. Thankfully, I have an advisor that agrees, otherwise I'd be laughed out of this place.

>> No.6210822

>>6210814
>General relativity doesn't explain where gravity comes from it describes the nature of the force.

Wrong, it explains exactly where gravity comes from. "Gravity" is simply the inertial motion of a body through curved space-time. You may be surprised to know that GPS clocks incorporate relativistic time dilation into their operation (because time dilates closer to a mass, the satellite's clock, further from the earth than a GPS unit in a car or your smartphone, is slowed very slightly to avoid long-term desynchronization). They also incorporate the relativistic corrections under special relativity, but in tandem these corrections allow GPS technology to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity

It's a theory that is both elegant and experimentally verified to an extremely high degree of accuracy. Without General Relativity it would be difficult to explain black holes, gravitational lensing, and other such effects.

MoND relies on an inelegant modification of Newton's outdated gravitational model to yield results which only have a narrow range of application (particularly only on the galactic scale, and not smaller or larger). It's kind of a one-time use model, so to speak. Proponents try to preserve the model by coming up with ad-hoc exceptions and justifications within systems where its predictions are otherwise inaccurate.

Physics isn't exactly a buffet where you can just pick and choose models you like or don't like.

>> No.6210823

>>6210819
My suggestion would be to look into how an entire galaxy of stars rotates around one point. Gravity is far reaching.

Also, don't try to explain all of the "missing mass" like (faggot ass) dark matter does.

I think gravity and other phenomena in the universe behave differently in large quantities. Try to imagine being ignorant of the universe and being given a sample of hydrogen, say 1 kilo. Would you be able to guess by observing and testing it from a single kilos worth that at the right mass fusion happens and it becomes a star?

I think the idea is something like that. We don't know the entire potential of something in this universe from such small samples and observations. In large quantities I think things will surprise us.

>> No.6210824

>>6210822
>Physics isn't exactly a buffet where you can just pick and choose models you like or don't like.
You mean like "dark matter". Oh.

>> No.6210825

>>6210822
enter corrections to MOND. TeVeS, for example, does a nice job correlating MOND's corrections with GR albeit not in any beautiful or simple equation.

>> No.6210828

>>6210822
>muh elegance
you know, maybe science can use some "dirty" explanations as well as Occam's Razor.

>> No.6210831

>>6210825

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor%E2%80%93vector%E2%80%93scalar_gravity#Problems_and_criticisms

GR is already a deeply useful and satisfactory theory. To posit that GR is fundamentally wrong in order to explain the discrepancy in galactic rotation curves between model and observation, rather than explaining the discrepancy by suggesting that we may not have a firm enough grasp on the masses of galaxies, seems completely insane to me from any rational standpoint.

>> No.6210833

>>6210814
MoND's predictions are only accurate when dealing with individual galaxy rotation curves, it's not so great at anything larger scale like a cluster or supercluster.

This makes sense because MoND was proposed as an arbitrary mathematical change to the nature of gravity in order to solve the problem of observation not matching up with model-prediction that we've been talking about. The person who came up with the equation for MoND was dealing with this problem of an individual galaxy rotation not matching what it's predicted to be by our models, and so he proposed this change to gravity in order to solve the problem he was faced with. It's not consistent enough nor inconsistent enough with the measurements of clusters and superclusters to discount or accredit it.

As has been said before though, dark matter is just a hypothesis as is MoND. We don't have conclusive evidence to prove or disprove either, though personally I find MoND difficult to see as anything other than arbitrary fiddling with math. You seem outraged at the very concept of researching this hypothesis, which confuses me.

>> No.6210838

>>6210831
>rather than explaining the discrepancy by suggesting that we may not have a firm enough grasp on the masses of galaxies, seems completely insane to me from any rational standpoint.
valid point until you utter the words "dark matter" then you're an asshole too.

>> No.6210840

>>6210833
I just find it more reasonable to say we "don't understand all there is about gravity" rather than "there must be secret, invisible strange matter in the universe". One is based on a lack of information as the premise while the other is inventing information and postulating around that.

>> No.6210842

I didn't realize there were dark matter haters out there. I've seen people have exaggerated emotional reactions to all sorts of things, but never a scientific hypothesis.

>> No.6210846

>>6210838

Once again: Dark Matter is not a "confirmed" source. It's a hypothetical source.

The distinction with MoND/TeVeS is that, unlike DM, they can be effortlessly ruled out by demonstrating their fallibility in describing a broader range of gravitational phenomena. Since they are quantitative models, all ones needs to do is apply their quantitative predictions to measurement and compare the two.

In other words, DM could still be determined true or false, whereas MoND and TeVeS have been shown quantitatively flimsy under a wide range of conditions.

DM is qualitatively "flimsy" in its current state insofar as it hasn't been proven to exist - but there isn't as much reason to discredit /it/ as there is to discredit MoND/TeVeS.

>> No.6210850

>>6210840
You consider the proposal of a change to a fundamental law, which by the way does not make accurate predictions, to be more rational than the proposal of matter which doesn't emit photons?

>> No.6210854

>>6210842

Well, I'm trying to be forthcoming with him. It is never the aim of a good scientist (or fan of science, which is what I am) to convince a doubter that their word is "true" and to simply believe it on good faith.

I want to illustrate some of the reasons for continued research, and my own argument for why it is not so wise to flat-out discredit a model that has not been quickly proven. Likewise, it is generally wise to distrust in models which are quickly disproven.

I will not, however, invoke the cliche that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". This opens up a can of worms and I respect the other poster too much to trick him with such rhetorical fluff.

>> No.6210858

>>6210850
yes(?)

>> No.6210865

>>6210854

is *not evidence of absence