I’m a bigger fan of how ChuckV drinks
3 Likes
I agree with your larger point (as does all of science) that the further something is from current well supported theories, the less likely it is to be true. That’s the basic mechanism of science in a nutshell.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but it sounds like you think dark matter is unlikely to be real? If so, I would suggest you read more about it because it is extremely well supported by multiple different lines of evidence at this point. Not just “galactic speedometers”. It also shows up in cosmic microwave background and observations with gravitational lensing, for example. The hypothesis keeps passing every test we can think of to throw at it. A lot of cosmological phenomena (such as galaxy collision behaviours) can’t be well explained without it. Science recognizes what an outlandish-sounding idea it is that 85% of matter in the universe is essentially undetected. It’s cray, and as a result the standard of evidence for this hypothesis has been very high. It’s taken since the late 19th century for the idea to really be taken seriously because of how outlandish it is. However at this point, the majority of cosmology agrees it’s real.
4 Likes
I’d settle for a replicator.
1 Like
Came here for that. Was not disappointed.
This shit makes my brane hurt.
4 Likes
1 Like
That was my thought when I read that line… the person who read this doesn’t really understand science. We didn’t “discover” gravity when someone saw it. We made up “gravity” to explain things. It’s just the scientific process of making shit up proves itself by being better at allowing us to make predictions and build technology than more old fashioned processes for making shit up.
2 Likes
1 Like
i’m loathe to enter another fruitless comment on this curiously touchy corner of scientific theory, but i feel my gasping point is utterly lost: The mention of phlogiston and earth centered theories were exactly to counter the notion of “the majority of cosmology agrees it’s real”. Those theories at one time were absolutely canon in the scientific community at their time. My point was despite the group acceptance, it is apparently requiring more and more complex, perhaps even bizarre, ancillary theories to be proposed - and that is a red flag of which many folks, including “the majority” should keep an eye upon. And please don’t suggest that anyone, particularly an anonymous anyone, “read more” or “do their research” as that’s just being dimissive of an unknown body of awareness.
1 Like
No touchiness here- I prefixed my post with “forgive me if I’m misinterpreting what you said” for this reason. In case I did, and it sounds like I did.
I generally agree wholeheartedly that telling people you don’t know to do their research as I did is typically rude. However when someone says something (and I know you didn’t say this- it’s hypothetical now) that a very well accepted scientific theory isn’t true based on a very flimsy argument (in this case snark about speed limits) I think it is reasonable to suggest they read a little more on the theory they are seeming to try and debunk. That pattern is strongly indicative of a layperson with a pet theory on something they have no grounds to debate.
2 Likes
My interested layman’s view is that dark matter is almost certainly real, but that dark energy is most likely something like phlogiston or epicycles - an earnest but completely wrong attempt at solving a problem we don’t know nearly enough about to understand how off we are.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
