Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Only dark matter, and not modified gravity, can explain the Universe. The evidence is damning and overwhelming   ( forbes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, dark matter, General relativity, normal matter, Universe, Big Bang, Galaxy, large-scale structure, cosmic microwave background  
•       •       •

1301 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Mar 2018 at 12:20 PM (31 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-03-06 10:17:24 AM  
Seems like the writer needs to understand 11d SUGRA before spouting things he does not understand as fact.
 
2018-03-06 10:48:55 AM  
Dark matter is stuff behind a paywall, right?
 
2018-03-06 11:17:29 AM  
They can't explain why space is expanding in some places, so I don't see why it can't be contracting in others.
 
2018-03-06 11:49:09 AM  

eurotrader: Seems like the writer needs to understand 11d SUGRA before spouting things he does not understand as fact.


Prove it.
 
2018-03-06 12:16:00 PM  
Scientists who think we know everything there is to know already about anything, including gravity, amuse and depress me.  Just because a model works doesn't mean the model is either true or the most accurate model possible.  It's just the best model so far.  Most major changes to or replacement of existing models are not predictable in nature until they happen.  The fact that someone doesn't know how to modify gravity to account for the errors in the gravitational model doesn't mean that such a modification cannot exist or that the model itself needs replacing in whole.
 
2018-03-06 12:16:45 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: eurotrader: Seems like the writer needs to understand 11d SUGRA before spouting things he does not understand as fact.

Prove it.


Come to a IOP conference. There is a good one on 4 April.
 
2018-03-06 12:34:34 PM  
I first read TFH as "gravy" as was both intrigued and appalled.
 
2018-03-06 12:37:07 PM  

bdub77: Dark matter is stuff behind a paywall, right?


I think it's part of the dark web, which is different than the light web.
 
2018-03-06 12:42:34 PM  

eurotrader: Seems like the writer needs to understand 11d SUGRA before spouting things he does not understand as fact.


As long as Forbes keeps sending the $5/month, Fark will keep linking Forbes "science" articles.
 
2018-03-06 12:54:12 PM  

obenchainr: Scientists who think we know everything there is to know already about anything, including gravity, amuse and depress me.


Name one.
 
2018-03-06 01:00:08 PM  
Dark Matter Matters
 
2018-03-06 01:00:12 PM  
Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...
tvseriesfinale.comView Full Size
 
2018-03-06 01:03:43 PM  

TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]


The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...
 
2018-03-06 01:06:48 PM  
As someone who worked on this kind of stuff... No.  The media gets it wrong.

We have evidence that sections of our own universe are still made of generation II matter (strange/charmed quark based), so the concept of everything being uniform is ridiculous.  Even the slowing of expansion should be non-uniform through space and time.

Dark matter and energy do exist, but do not account for the entirety of these discrepancies.  Time dilation and other dimensional influences are things we are just starting to get a grip on, and we have a long way to go.  We know those other dimensions influence things, but we don't know how.  CERN is helping, for example.  There are plenty of other efforts out there, as well.
 
2018-03-06 01:23:19 PM  
Forbes "science" strikes again.
 
2018-03-06 01:25:30 PM  

zulius: TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]

The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...


It had the highest ratings of any current syfy series. From what I have read (supposedly from a studio insider)  it was cancelled because CBS offered to partially fund 2 seasons of Killjoys if Dark Matter were cancelled. They did this because DM had a blink drive, evil counterparts of the characters from a parallel universe, and main characters who used to be bad but became good after mind wiping. Star Trek Discovery was about to have all 3 of those and CBS didn't want there to be comparisons.

Yeah it sounds like a conspiracy but considering how CBS operates it sounds plausible too.
 
2018-03-06 01:37:00 PM  

bdub77: Dark matter is stuff behind a paywall, right?


That's deep matter... or maybe dark, I don't remember.  But I do shell out $20 a month for ID protection that scans the web with a reversed tachyon beam for my soc. security number
 
2018-03-06 01:44:22 PM  

Noah_Tall: zulius: TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]

The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...

It had the highest ratings of any current syfy series. From what I have read (supposedly from a studio insider)  it was cancelled because CBS offered to partially fund 2 seasons of Killjoys if Dark Matter were cancelled. They did this because DM had a blink drive, evil counterparts of the characters from a parallel universe, and main characters who used to be bad but became good after mind wiping. Star Trek Discovery was about to have all 3 of those and CBS didn't want there to be comparisons.

Yeah it sounds like a conspiracy but considering how CBS operates it sounds plausible too.


Huh, hadn't heard that. Sounds plausible to me too. I haven't seen Discover Card so I can't compare the two.

IRT Dark Matter the last season was pretty good, hell of a cliffhanger to end the series on though.
 
2018-03-06 01:48:40 PM  

Gleeman: Noah_Tall: zulius: TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]

The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...

It had the highest ratings of any current syfy series. From what I have read (supposedly from a studio insider)  it was cancelled because CBS offered to partially fund 2 seasons of Killjoys if Dark Matter were cancelled. They did this because DM had a blink drive, evil counterparts of the characters from a parallel universe, and main characters who used to be bad but became good after mind wiping. Star Trek Discovery was about to have all 3 of those and CBS didn't want there to be comparisons.

Yeah it sounds like a conspiracy but considering how CBS operates it sounds plausible too.

Huh, hadn't heard that. Sounds plausible to me too. I haven't seen Discover Card so I can't compare the two.

IRT Dark Matter the last season was pretty good, hell of a cliffhanger to end the series on though.


Yeah, the Android's time skip let them say "we have everything planned out" and tease some cool future events. It had promise.
 
2018-03-06 01:49:40 PM  
Well considering
"Dark Matter" is just short for 'Attactive force we don't understand' and
"Dark Energy" is just short for 'Repulsive force we don't understand'

If someone out there is telling me Dark Matter is the only way to explain the universe, we're truly farked.  Pretending you know something so you don't sound stupid doesn't solve the problem.
 
2018-03-06 01:57:21 PM  

solve4x: Well considering
"Dark Matter" is just short for 'Attactive force we don't understand' and
"Dark Energy" is just short for 'Repulsive force we don't understand'

If someone out there is telling me Dark Matter is the only way to explain the universe, we're truly farked.  Pretending you know something so you don't sound stupid doesn't solve the problem.


It's even worse than that.  It's a perceived attractive and repulsive force we don't understand.  It may not actually be there.  Maybe someday we can reproduce it reliably and really nail it down.  But for now, we're on a large scale hunt for what's going on.
 
2018-03-06 02:35:39 PM  

aungen: solve4x: Well considering
"Dark Matter" is just short for 'Attactive force we don't understand' and
"Dark Energy" is just short for 'Repulsive force we don't understand'

If someone out there is telling me Dark Matter is the only way to explain the universe, we're truly farked.  Pretending you know something so you don't sound stupid doesn't solve the problem.

It's even worse than that.  It's a perceived attractive and repulsive force we don't understand.  It may not actually be there.  Maybe someday we can reproduce it reliably and really nail it down.  But for now, we're on a large scale hunt for what's going on.


A billion dollars a year for pure science including pay for  graduate students to run the experiments and hopefully we would know more than we don't in a few years. Right now the unknown is far greater than the known. Really want a stargate type device to travel and that requires understanding the unseen dimensions and we  are not even sure they exist. The lack of the needed math has to be addressed.
 
2018-03-06 02:41:11 PM  
Science boiled down to give MBAs something else to chat about over cocktails.
 
2018-03-06 02:48:07 PM  

eurotrader: aungen: solve4x: Well considering
"Dark Matter" is just short for 'Attactive force we don't understand' and
"Dark Energy" is just short for 'Repulsive force we don't understand'

If someone out there is telling me Dark Matter is the only way to explain the universe, we're truly farked.  Pretending you know something so you don't sound stupid doesn't solve the problem.

It's even worse than that.  It's a perceived attractive and repulsive force we don't understand.  It may not actually be there.  Maybe someday we can reproduce it reliably and really nail it down.  But for now, we're on a large scale hunt for what's going on.

A billion dollars a year for pure science including pay for  graduate students to run the experiments and hopefully we would know more than we don't in a few years. Right now the unknown is far greater than the known. Really want a stargate type device to travel and that requires understanding the unseen dimensions and we  are not even sure they exist. The lack of the needed math has to be addressed.


I'm really hoping the calabi yao math helps.  Six dimensions knotted up.  But that is beyond my level.  I know just enough to know they are fighting that fight.
 
2018-03-06 02:48:48 PM  

Noah_Tall: zulius: TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]

The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...

It had the highest ratings of any current syfy series. From what I have read (supposedly from a studio insider)  it was cancelled because CBS offered to partially fund 2 seasons of Killjoys if Dark Matter were cancelled. They did this because DM had a blink drive, evil counterparts of the characters from a parallel universe, and main characters who used to be bad but became good after mind wiping. Star Trek Discovery was about to have all 3 of those and CBS didn't want there to be comparisons.

Yeah it sounds like a conspiracy but considering how CBS operates it sounds plausible too.


I've seen the first two seasons of Dark Matter and I've seen the first two seasons of The Expanse.
Dark Matter might have had higher ratings, but the Expanse is clearly a better show.
 
2018-03-06 02:54:18 PM  
The subject matter in the article quickly went beyond what I could follow.  But have scientists perhaps considered the mass locked up in subbys' moms?
 
2018-03-06 03:02:24 PM  

Karac: The subject matter in the article quickly went beyond what I could follow.  But have scientists perhaps considered the mass locked up in subbys' moms?


Mass Effect: Andromeda was an interesting game, but you should feel bad for bringing up the Angarans.
 
2018-03-06 03:14:03 PM  
"If someone tries to sell you modified gravity, ask them about the cosmic microwave background. Ask them about large-scale structure. Ask them about Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the full suite of other cosmological observations."

I don't expect that to ever happen but OK, will do!
 
2018-03-06 03:23:47 PM  

rsherva: "If someone tries to sell you modified gravity, ask them about the cosmic microwave background. Ask them about large-scale structure. Ask them about Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the full suite of other cosmological observations."

I don't expect that to ever happen but OK, will do!


If you can show what makes up gravity and a way to bottle it, there is medal and a check waiting in Stockholm.
 
2018-03-06 03:27:35 PM  

rsherva: "If someone tries to sell you modified gravity, ask them about the cosmic microwave background. Ask them about large-scale structure. Ask them about Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the full suite of other cosmological observations."

I don't expect that to ever happen but OK, will do!


Microwave background, large scale structure, and other items are observations, with simulated models that sometimes match when we fiddle with the numbers.  These are not experimental results, and they are not something we can produce at will or manipulate.  We are at really, really early stages of figuring out what questions to ask, let alone what an answer might be.
 
2018-03-06 03:37:01 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: eurotrader: Seems like the writer needs to understand 11d SUGRA before spouting things he does not understand as fact.

As long as Forbes keeps sending the $5/month, Fark will keep linking Forbes "science" articles.


Are you referring to those "articles" "written by" "Astrophysicist" "Ethan Siegel"? Those "science" "articles"?
 
2018-03-06 03:41:29 PM  

whither_apophis: bdub77: Dark matter is stuff behind a paywall, right?

That's deep matter... or maybe dark, I don't remember.  But I do shell out $20 a month for ID protection that scans the web with a reversed tachyon beam for my soc. security number


I just use Ublock. Zero problems.
 
2018-03-06 04:05:10 PM  

Karac: Noah_Tall: zulius: TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]

The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...

It had the highest ratings of any current syfy series. From what I have read (supposedly from a studio insider)  it was cancelled because CBS offered to partially fund 2 seasons of Killjoys if Dark Matter were cancelled. They did this because DM had a blink drive, evil counterparts of the characters from a parallel universe, and main characters who used to be bad but became good after mind wiping. Star Trek Discovery was about to have all 3 of those and CBS didn't want there to be comparisons.

Yeah it sounds like a conspiracy but considering how CBS operates it sounds plausible too.

I've seen the first two seasons of Dark Matter and I've seen the first two seasons of The Expanse.
Dark Matter might have had higher ratings, but the Expanse is clearly a better show.


The budget for The Expanse is $5 mil/episode.

Dark Matter was half that.
 
2018-03-06 04:19:13 PM  

HempHead: Karac: Noah_Tall: zulius: TheotherMIguy: Not sure what the crew of the Raza has to do with the universe expanding...[tvseriesfinale.com image 590x286]

The first season was cool, the second was better, then they took a dump with the third. Not sure what they were going for, but I see why it got cancelled...

It had the highest ratings of any current syfy series. From what I have read (supposedly from a studio insider)  it was cancelled because CBS offered to partially fund 2 seasons of Killjoys if Dark Matter were cancelled. They did this because DM had a blink drive, evil counterparts of the characters from a parallel universe, and main characters who used to be bad but became good after mind wiping. Star Trek Discovery was about to have all 3 of those and CBS didn't want there to be comparisons.

Yeah it sounds like a conspiracy but considering how CBS operates it sounds plausible too.

I've seen the first two seasons of Dark Matter and I've seen the first two seasons of The Expanse.
Dark Matter might have had higher ratings, but the Expanse is clearly a better show.

The budget for The Expanse is $5 mil/episode.

Dark Matter was half that.


And besides, The Orville is miles better than either.
 
2018-03-06 04:23:26 PM  
YAY another forbes science? how much are they paying ? not even jokeing
 
2018-03-06 04:50:22 PM  
Dark Matter was good until they went of the rails with Ancient Japan in space.
 
2018-03-06 05:08:30 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-03-06 05:22:30 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: eurotrader: Seems like the writer needs to understand 11d SUGRA before spouting things he does not understand as fact.

Prove it.


Forbes link.
We ain't got to prove shiat.
 
2018-03-06 06:17:04 PM  

obenchainr: Scientists who think we know everything there is to know already about anything, including gravity, amuse and depress me.  Just because a model works doesn't mean the model is either true or the most accurate model possible.


I've never heard of a scientist that thinks that.

aungen: Microwave background, large scale structure, and other items are observations, with simulated models that sometimes match when we fiddle with the numbers. These are not experimental results, and they are not something we can produce at will or manipulate. We are at really, really early stages of figuring out what questions to ask, let alone what an answer might be.


You're making a distinction where none exists. With cosmology, if you want to devise an experiment, rather than setting up a universe to study, you just look out and find a place in the Universe were your experiment is already happening. In doing so, either your predictions are confirmed (such as the CMB), or you discover entirely new physics (Such as the WMAP data discovering dark energy).
 
2018-03-06 06:29:20 PM  
drumhellar:

No, he's right.

Most of astronomy is theoretical mathsturbation. That's why we have crap like "dark matter" and "dark energy". It's basically the modern physics equivalent of "Here Be Dragons".   It's entirely possible some new observation will pop that cork and we'll be able to turn in into Smith Matter and Tanaka Energy, but it's also possible our math is just wrong and a little tinkering eliminates or severely reduces the need for the majority of everything to be wrapped up in placeholder names.
 
2018-03-06 06:54:49 PM  

doglover: drumhellar:

No, he's right.

Most of astronomy is theoretical mathsturbation. That's why we have crap like "dark matter" and "dark energy". It's basically the modern physics equivalent of "Here Be Dragons".   It's entirely possible some new observation will pop that cork and we'll be able to turn in into Smith Matter and Tanaka Energy, but it's also possible our math is just wrong and a little tinkering eliminates or severely reduces the need for the majority of everything to be wrapped up in placeholder names.


Isn't that just "theoretical mathsturbation"?

With regard to dark matter, our theories on Dark Matter (not a placeholder, but called dark matter because it doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force) are actually making predictions that are being confirmed by later observations. This is how experimentation confirms existing theories - predictions are made, and an experiment is designed to see if the predictions are true. In the case of cosmology, we are predicting things that our dark matter theories say should exist, and later finding them.

This is also the case with Dark Energy (Which is currently a place holder name, but that doesn't make the theory less sound. It was discovered with the COBE experiment (not WMAP as said in my previous post). But, the little knowledge of dark energy we had was enough to make predictions - that the universe's expansion is accelerating, and that it would produce a specific effect on the CMB and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Quasar studies confirmed the accelerating expansion of the universe, large-scale sky surveys cofirmed the large-scale structure of the Universe, and the WMAP probe confirmed the effects on the CMB.

These are predictions made about dark energy that were later confirmed. We have no ideas about the physical nature of dark energy, but that's fine. It's effects have been measured, and predictions have been confirmed.

This makes it different from the luminiferous aether that you and others like to compare it to. That was a theory about the physical nature of light (Not a dogmatic belief like y'all like to portray it as). It was complete enough to provide a means of testing - but, the tests failed, and the aether was discarded.

The exact opposite is happening with dark matter and dark energy.
 
2018-03-06 07:17:06 PM  
drumhellar:

I'm not communicating this right.

Yes, even though the observable universe seems to follow a model, a model is still just a false thing. An imaginary construct of math, concepts, and cheesy planitarium special effects.  Not only can it be changed, but it must be changed with every new data point that diverges from
what's been predicted.

By contrast, the universe will not change no matter how a model is buggered with. The universe is, the model is not.

But the bridge there is experimentation. You can isolate things down to one single variable and refine your model to a point where, while it's still not real, it can predict reality reliably enough to land our RC cars on Mars and beam back the photos.

By contrast, Astronomy has no laboratory. It's just an ever increasing sea of random observations. Thus it's small wonder the current model has 3/4ths of everything everywhere as "Dark"
 
2018-03-06 07:53:38 PM  

doglover: drumhellar:

I'm not communicating this right.

Yes, even though the observable universe seems to follow a model, a model is still just a false thing. An imaginary construct of math, concepts, and cheesy planitarium special effects.  Not only can it be changed, but it must be changed with every new data point that diverges from
what's been predicted.

By contrast, the universe will not change no matter how a model is buggered with. The universe is, the model is not.

But the bridge there is experimentation. You can isolate things down to one single variable and refine your model to a point where, while it's still not real, it can predict reality reliably enough to land our RC cars on Mars and beam back the photos.

By contrast, Astronomy has no laboratory. It's just an ever increasing sea of random observations. Thus it's small wonder the current model has 3/4ths of everything everywhere as "Dark"


You're right; your aren't communicating this right, because  you're describing models of the universe exactly the same way scientists would describe them, while pretending that you're offering insight that others don't have (when they actually do)

You then seem to suggest that, dinner or models aren't absolutely perfect, then they're useless when it comes to describing the universe, then seem to suggest that we can't actually know anything about the universe, that what we see and experience may just be an illusion.

That's philosophy, not science
 
2018-03-06 07:54:37 PM  

doglover: drumhellar:

I'm not communicating this right.

Yes, even though the observable universe seems to follow a model, a model is still just a false thing. An imaginary construct of math, concepts, and cheesy planitarium special effects.  Not only can it be changed, but it must be changed with every new data point that diverges from
what's been predicted.

By contrast, the universe will not change no matter how a model is buggered with. The universe is, the model is not.

But the bridge there is experimentation. You can isolate things down to one single variable and refine your model to a point where, while it's still not real, it can predict reality reliably enough to land our RC cars on Mars and beam back the photos.

By contrast, Astronomy has no laboratory. It's just an ever increasing sea of random observations. Thus it's small wonder the current model has 3/4ths of everything everywhere as "Dark"


And, yes, astronomy has a laboratory. it's the universe. It's only a matter of finding where the experiment we want is already happening.
 
2018-03-06 08:50:01 PM  
drumhellar:

That's not an experiment!

*tosses table*

Sloppy language like that is why people don't know basic science! Between that, and naming everything after random scientists, we're lucky more people aren't actual flat earthers.
 
2018-03-06 09:25:03 PM  

drumhellar: obenchainr: Scientists who think we know everything there is to know already about anything, including gravity, amuse and depress me.  Just because a model works doesn't mean the model is either true or the most accurate model possible.

I've never heard of a scientist that thinks that.

aungen: Microwave background, large scale structure, and other items are observations, with simulated models that sometimes match when we fiddle with the numbers. These are not experimental results, and they are not something we can produce at will or manipulate. We are at really, really early stages of figuring out what questions to ask, let alone what an answer might be.

You're making a distinction where none exists. With cosmology, if you want to devise an experiment, rather than setting up a universe to study, you just look out and find a place in the Universe were your experiment is already happening. In doing so, either your predictions are confirmed (such as the CMB), or you discover entirely new physics (Such as the WMAP data discovering dark energy).


I do this for a living.  I'm a simulation guy these days.  A while back I was the observer guy with the telescope.  I literally looked for dark matter on the ICECUBE and AMANDA neutrino telescopes. I spent more than a year at the south pole.  Now I'm working on the theory side. For a while I even worked in the data analysis side of things.  There really is a difference.  And that is why I say we are in our infancy.

CMB is a perfect example.  We have no proof that the sky map we have is a good map, that truly links back to the big bang.  We have a sky map, and we think it does.  We have some arguments to support that, and until something better comes along it is best to continue on that route.  But we have to be on guard.  If something better comes along, we have to be able to handle that.

For example, if we discover  a knotted dimension affects time over supercluster-scale distances, we're suddenly in a very interesting universe.  Some of the math even suggests we can test things like this by using a trick in which the universe treats very large and very small separations between things like they are the same.

We have a long way to go. Seriously.
 
2018-03-06 09:33:45 PM  
I wrote more but deleted it.  Basically my contention is that we can't lean back too hard on observation - not even something as tidy as quasars.  Observation alone gets us as far as classical physics got with Gravity.  Ideally we will someday be running experiments to validate this stuff in a controlled environment with repeatable and externally verifiable results.  It may take a few thousand years, but as a species we could potentially be up to the task.
 
2018-03-06 10:02:55 PM  
Quote from the article: "We've measured the number of photons in the Universe"
That is a huge lie. That measurement is impossible, except at the singularity before the big bang. Photons have a velocity and a direction. There is no location within the universe that allows measuring of all of the photons.
I'm sure what he meant to say was "We've measured all the photons that could be measured from earth, and extrapolated that to a calculation of the number of photons we think should exist in the universe." That is a very different statement, and the inexactness shows why Forbes science articles are so bad.
 
2018-03-07 01:08:36 PM  

drumhellar: With cosmology, if you want to devise an experiment, rather than setting up a universe to study, you just look out and find a place in the Universe were your experiment is already happening.


One analogy to that concerns understanding how trees work. You don't need to watch one tree grow all the way from a seed to maturity. Just go into a forest and look at all the different sized trees - pretty soon you may realize that the little ones are younger than the bigger ones. If you want to study the little ones, then just look at them. cheers
 
2018-03-07 07:52:12 PM  

obenchainr: Scientists who think we know everything there is to know already about anything, including gravity, amuse and depress me.  Just because a model works doesn't mean the model is either true or the most accurate model possible.  It's just the best model so far.  Most major changes to or replacement of existing models are not predictable in nature until they happen.  The fact that someone doesn't know how to modify gravity to account for the errors in the gravitational model doesn't mean that such a modification cannot exist or that the model itself needs replacing in whole.


The way I see the debate over dark matter is this:

Suppose you see what looks like elephant footprints appearing in the mud, here and there all over the world. Now, invisible elephants are pretty far out and startling. But isn't it a simpler explanation than modifying the law of gravity such that elephant footprints spontaneously just happen in exactly the right places and times? After all, we know of many forms of matter and radiation that are invisible anyway. So I see the skepticism of dark matter as irrational. Are you going to disbelieve in neutrinos? In X-rays? In radio waves? Just because we can't see those? Or do you believe in those simply because anything that's been accepted since before you were born is not to be questioned?

"1. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
-Douglas Adams
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report