/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9456102]

>Mike: Any ideas why the rotation curve of the galaxy does not match our expected values?
>Bill: Maybe there are magical fairies invisible to our detection pushing it? I can prove it by changing the numbers to make it work.
>Mike: Are you retarded, Bill?
>John: Maybe there is magical matter invisible to our detection pushing it? I can prove it by changing the numbers to make it work.
>Nobel Committee: Congratulations!

Is there a bigger joke field in all of science than astrophysics?

[Anonymous No.9456102,1]

Is that a motherfucking black-energy reference

[Anonymous No.9456308]

>>9456102
>I don't understand X, but let me tell you why my TV knowledge of it is bullshit.
Go away.

[Anonymous No.9456549]

>>9456308
Nice refutation aether cuck.

[Anonymous No.9456555]

>>9456102

[Anonymous No.9456559]

>>9456308
But this is exactly how dark matter / energy work?

Rather than assume our calculations are wrong, we decide its more plausible our universe is 90% undetectable

[Anonymous No.9456565]

>>9456555
>MOND doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.9456568]

>>9456565
Or we don’t have a clue how gravity works

[Anonymous No.9458076]

>>9456102
>Is there a bigger joke field in all of science than astrophysics?
Social "science"

[Anonymous No.9458150]

>>9458076
Occultism has better results than social science. What does that say about that field if mystical bullshit works better?

[Anonymous No.9458163]

So it's 2018 now. Was Einstein in any extent proven wrong about the nature of gravity?
I mean, it just makes sense. Gravitons seem kinda sciffy.

[Anonymous No.9458170]

>>9456102
Well, string theory and super symmetry are really tough competitors.

In any case,. astrophysics is a great deal more than dark wotsits,

[Anonymous No.9458177]

>>9456568
Incoherent dielectric inertia.
>>9456102
congrats you also described how every "particle" came into "existence".

Everything is non-physical motion and change, but that doesn't stop phycoti-i mean scientists from trying to prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.9458190]

>>9456102
That's a nice strawman.

The mechanics of motion works here on earth,our solar system, and on larger scales. It's actually harder to explain why the physics would be different than why our parameterization is wrong.

There's been a great deal of effort to explain the discrepancy in terms of wrong distance,size,etc... and they all failed.

In other words, we'd have to be completely wrong about physics on earth for dark matter to not work. Although likely, we have no other model to explain it.

[Anonymous No.9458223]

Heliocentric model is satanic sun worship created by freemasonic "scientists".

[Anonymous No.9458256]

*blocks your path*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itasiXNUPg

[Anonymous No.9458265]

>>9458223
It's always such a coincidence that glowing people like you show up in these threads and throw around terms like "satanic", "freemasonic" and other nonsense. You guys are supposed to be investigating that shit, not spreading it like disinfo.

[Anonymous No.9458340]

Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean a field is flawed. Dark matter isn't "chaining the numbers". From simile initial conditions and gravity, cold dark matter tells you dark matter collapses to form halos, these halos have just the right slope to show why rotation curves flatten. There are no parameters to tune to do that. CDM can also be tested in dozens of other ones. For example predicting the statistics of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, the ratio between odd and even peaks tells you about dark matter. CDM correctly predicted these observations, no dark matter free model has explain this. Dark matter also predicted that the signature of dark matter halos should be imprinted on how galaxies cluster, long before this prediction was confirmed.

>>9456565
MOND doesn't explain anything. MOND prescribes a modification to Newtonian gravity. It doesn't tell you why that occurs, or even what form it should take. It also doesn't match observations of galaxy clusters or cosmology, cold dark matter does. It utterly failed in it's predictions of the cosmic microwave background, so it's proponents just gave up. MOND is pretty much dead.

[Anonymous No.9458350]

does anyone sane and educated seriously believe there's such thing as 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' in the real world?

[Anonymous No.9458375]

>>9458256
Mike McCulloch is a pseudoscientist promoting EMDrive. All his model does is get the same result MOND gets, which still fails on larger scales.

But more than that he's intellectually dishonest. He wrote one of his "papers" about explaining the low power on large scales in the cosmic microwave background with his ideas. What he ignored was that the power is low with respect to the standard model. That standard model includes dark matter, remove it and the model will not fit he acoustic peaks at smaller scales. This was pointed out in the comments of his blog but he first tried to claim it would just magically revert to standard cosmology (i.e. with dark matter) and then ignored the point.

[Anonymous No.9458497]

>>9456102
Every heard of Neutrinos, brainlet? Why the hell do you think modifying gravity is more likely to work if we can just posit the existence of a particle with nearly identical properties to one we've already proven to exist?

>>9456565
Bullet Cluster or GTFO

[Anonymous No.9459056]

>>9458350
Only brainlets

[Anonymous No.9459071]

the virgin WIMP vs the chad MACHO

[Anonymous No.9459500]

>>9458350
Deserved trips.

[Anonymous No.9459503]

>>9456555
Deserved trips

[Anonymous No.9460749]

>>9458340
That's not true. There are new theories of MOND derived with Hamilton's principle of least action.

[Anonymous No.9460754]

>>9459071
Kek. I want a meme about that

[Anonymous No.9460834]

>>9460749
What isn't true? Lots of points were made.

>There are new theories of MOND derived with Hamilton's principle of least action.
The provide a source if you think it disproves something claimed. If you're going to try and counter a claim then provide evidence.