from the mini-halos-are-for-really-small-angels dept.
Missing Galaxies? Now There's Too Many:
Gaze skyward from the Southern Hemisphere and it's hard to miss the Large Magellanic Cloud. The fact that it looks like one of the Milky Way's spiral arms, albeit smaller, reveals that it's a small galaxy roughly 30,000 light-years across with a few billion stars. Indeed, any small telescope will show that it's scattered with glowing nebulae that are punctured by dark dollops of dust.
And it isn't the only satellite galaxy that slowly swirls around the Milky Way. By 1999, astronomers had detected a dozen companions, many of them invisible to the unaided eye. But at that time, computer simulations of the evolution of the universe had predicted that the Milky Way's neighborhood should be bustling with activity — hosting not a dozen, but thousands, of tiny companions. So where were the missing satellites?
That astronomical riddle went on to bedevil astronomers for nearly two decades. Researchers came up with a number of potential explanations. Some involved speculative new ideas about how galaxies evolve. Others proposed the existence of exotic forms of dark matter — the mysterious substance that makes up 84 percent of the matter in the universe.
But within the past few years something strange happened. New surveys allowed astronomers to find more satellite galaxies that had previously been hidden. At the same time, updated computer simulations predicted the existence of far fewer galaxies than their predecessors did.
In fact, the estimates of galaxy numbers from observational studies and from theoretical simulations converged so quickly that they ended up overshooting each other. Whereas in the early 2000s astronomers worried that there were too few satellites, by 2018 there appeared to be too many. The missing satellites problem had been turned inside out.
The story dives into ultra faint dwarf galaxies, dark matter halos, mini-halos, tiny little ghost galaxies, as well as computer simulations of the Milky Way galaxy having different results depending on whether they were based on dark matter or on our everyday baryonic matter.
But [University of California, Irvine astronomer James] Bullock and his colleagues didn't merely outline the problem, they also proposed a solution. Simulations have long suggested that lots of dark-matter mini-halos formed around the Milky Way. But astronomers argued that these halos didn't form galaxies. There's a threshold, the argument went, below which these halos simply didn't have enough gravity to hold on to the gas necessary to form stars. They were thus star-free and invisible.
For nearly 20 years, astronomers thought that threshold for the mass of a dark-matter halo that could form a galaxy rested around 500 million times the mass of the sun. But Bullock's team suspects that it's much lower, around 30 million times the mass of the sun.
If such small globs of dark matter can grab onto enough ordinary matter to create stars (and thus galaxies), then simulations start to match observations. Indeed, Bullock's team was able to model galaxies that are eerily real. Not only do the numbers of simulated mini-halos match the numbers that are predicted by observations, but the shapes of the galaxies' orbits even look like the ones we have already detected.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:45AM (10 children)
The impression I get from this is that the people studying it are underestimating the uncertainty on the observations while simultaneously overestimating how precise their theoretical predictions really are. Ie, the underlying theory is clearly compatible with a much larger range of observations than usually admitted and they are fine tuning the simulations to get the results they want.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:11PM (9 children)
Perhaps. But that's not the story TFA tells at all. Rather, it says older models were more limited due computing limitations at the time. But as models become more sophisticated and are able to take into account more parameters, what they have predicted has changed. Far from tuning them to get the results they want, TFA chronicles several moments of surprise from scientists at the output of the new models, which then seemed to have interesting potential intersections with recent observational data.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:58PM (8 children)
Actually, it implies that the models are not parameter(s) stable and as such useless for meaningful estimations.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:03PM (7 children)
People are working to model the universe and you want to shit on them why?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:23PM (6 children)
It really doesn't matter in this case. If our cosmology is fudged up by political antics driving the science that doesn't really hurt much, even if the error persists for hundreds of years. But this same problem of computer models being subtly driven toward expected results is hurting real people. Look at how many medical studies are tainted. And I think we can all think of one big elephant in the room that could cost us all trillions and trillions of dollars, euros, yen, whatever and worse our political liberties.
Now get ready to pucker yer butthole. We don't test real nukes, only simulated ones.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:51PM (4 children)
You are trying to draw a parallel between a case where that was highly incomplete data, forcing a model in the wrong direction, and "the elephant" where there is massive amounts of concordant data making it really clear what any model will output.
I am still trying to understand what the denial of reality buys you, beyond "ignorance is bliss" feelings.
You can't wish glaciers and snowpacks back into existence. So, unless you're really old, you'd better be ready for the consequences.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:29PM (3 children)
The models were certain the North Pole would be ice free years ago. Last I looked the ice is steadfastly refusing to conform to the model.
Tell me, what could possibly discredit your faith? If the weather is warm, Global Warming! We are having a cold spell, Climate Change! If we have hurricanes it is due to Warming, if we run a few years without any that is Climate Change. More rain, less rain, both mean the same thing, another confirmation. It is exactly like belief in God, if your kid gets cancer it is God's Will. If the kid recovers it is a Miracle. Tell me how one would disprove AGW Theory? Because that is how Science works, make a testable hypothesis, then test it and grade it pass/fail.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday January 30 2019, @07:14PM (2 children)
It's easy to disprove. Just get rid of all data collection, and destroy all historical records. That may require providing all humans with mandatory medication to make sure nobody remembers what the climate used to be like and how fast the patterns are changing.
Also, killing all the bugs and plants which are migrating north (south down-under) because the new long-term patterns allow their survival.
And go get the Antarctic shelves to avoid future coring, and move them to replace the melting glaciers.
Peace of cake.
A lot easier than making you admit that maybe there is a change happening, and maybe not all scientists around the world are commie pinko taliban eager to destroy your way of life by pointing out that some of us use on average three times more energy than other people with as many freedoms...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @02:51AM
Ask the Romans about the climate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:00AM
The parent talked about specific failures of the models. It seems you are satisfied that the models predicted "change". The climate is always changing... so "predicting" this should not impress anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:36PM
I've thought about this... what if North Korea is actually the only country with still functional nuclear weapons?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Debvgger on Wednesday January 30 2019, @12:09PM (3 children)
Just going through TFS shows me that most of what I knew back when I used to go out with my DIY telescope has been obsoleted by a lot of new knowledge.
That is exciting :-)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 30 2019, @12:34PM (2 children)
Careful with that fresh erection, we mustn't knock Andromeda down.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:47PM (1 child)
He's probably been using his telescope to watch Xena, Warrior Princess instead.
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Debvgger on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:49PM
To be honest, Xena CGI was made on Commodore Amiga computers if I remember it right, and that always guarantees pumping blood there :-)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @12:33PM (37 children)
Does this mean we can FINALLY stop talking about dark matter?!?!?
Read my typing: there is NO dark matter!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday January 30 2019, @01:13PM (1 child)
So Dark Matter is sort of like astronomy or astrology, depending on level of education and system of belief, Fight Club then? We do not talk about Dark Matter ....
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:26PM
Dark matter is that thing so wonderful that, if it didn't exist, we'd need to invent it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday January 30 2019, @02:53PM
I seem to remember reading (I don't know where; anybody else have references) that simulating galaxies with lumpy matter distribution can also give results like those that use dark matter. Something that hasn't been computationally feasible until recently.
And matter is certainly lumpy.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:20PM (19 children)
> Read my typing: there is NO dark matter!
Based on what evidence?
(Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:11PM (8 children)
The same evidence militant atheists offer in support of their position. Dark matter and energy are completely lacking in evidence. So, exactly like the existence of a deity, anyone saying they know for sure that dark matter/energy exist is full of shit. They're observed phenomenon that appear to behave like matter and energy but are utterly unknown in cause if you're forced to rely on known facts.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:24PM (6 children)
The wikipedia article makes a fairly good list of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:37PM (5 children)
All the evidence amounts to "General relativity predicts the wrong thing above solar system scales". It is not evidence for dark matter, it is evidence that GR is wrong.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:06PM (1 child)
Most likely it is not that GR is wrong, but because border conditions for the equations are chosen wrong. Note that they are chosen as such not because they are presumed correct, but because they could be solved by current generation of scientists. A typical case of looking for keys under a street light.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:03AM
Fine, GR-based models.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:10PM (2 children)
Wrong. The evidence says "If we assume only the observable matter then General relativity predicts the wrong thing, but if we assume dark matter in addition, then it predicts the right thing.
The last part is evidence. Because it is far from trivial that if you just add some matter (which itself moves under the influence of gravity) that you get the right results.
Also: There is no other hypothesis that explains all observations as well as dark matter does. In other words, there's currently no real contender.
And finally, attempts to unify the fundamental forces (a project that is quite independent from any astronomical observation!) predict particles that have just the properties of dark matter. Which is an additional hint that dark matter probably exists.
Is it possible that ultimately the explanation turns out to be something different? Yes, of course. But at this point in time, dark matter is the absolutely best hypothesis we have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:39PM
This amounts to "put invisible mass whervere it needs to be so GR predicts the right thing".
No, you can't just add invisible stuff wherever you want and say that is evidence for your theory.
"God said so" explains it just as well as dark matter.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:40PM
"Also: There is no other hypothesis that explains all observations as well as dark matter does. In other words, there's currently no real contender."
QI explains it better, and with no random adding of shit they are calling dark matter.
Dark matter was called up to save GR, but there ARE better models. Even MOND is better than dark matter.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:31PM
> So, exactly like the existence of a deity.
You mean, like the presence of a thing in the domain of the things created by that same thing, which is already an unreasonable requirement? Or you mean more correctly the (undefined concept) in the domain of the (undefined concept) as un-discoverable using (undefined logic system)? I say it is a different problem...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:17PM (9 children)
On the FACT that dark matter is a kludge: take one galaxy. In order for it to not fly apart, you have to add X amount of dark matter.
But THIS galaxy over here, you have to add X plus Y dark matter to it.
This galaxy here? You take away X -B dark matter.
This here? You add X plus B...no..C?...no D?..no....hmmm....E? Yes! E!
There is no formula, the dark matter is just added in random amounts until the amount needed is found.
It is a kludge to keep GR from failing in this case.
Much better is the QI model. Self consistent, has a formula that works, no kludge needed as in dark matter and MOND.
There is NO dark matter.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:27PM (5 children)
I havent heard of QI model, do you have a reference.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:02PM (4 children)
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Read through his latest stuff: it shows how well it solves the dark matter problem as well as new research (he got a big grant to further it).
Basically, inertia keeps the galaxies from flying apart, not dark matter.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:24PM (3 children)
Ah, the guy from the EM-Drive, which would violate conservation of momentum.
I'll consider the theory when there's irrefutable evidence that the EM-Drive works.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:21PM
There's more proof the Em drive is real than dark matter.... But hey. Fuck it...dark matter RULES!, right?
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf [emdrive.com]
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-qi-predict-woodward-effect.html [blogspot.com]
"It is a peer reviewed, checked by other scientists. Most of the experimental papers on it before this have been conference reports, not subject to the same rigour. It was apparently a very long and difficult process too, so Dr Harold G. White of NASA should be commended for having the courage to do this in the first place, and for his hard work through peer review."
---https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/search?q=Em+drive
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120 [aiaa.org]
I'll believe science over magic any day.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @07:26PM (1 child)
No, it converts energy into momentum. Photons have no mass but they have momentum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @08:59PM
Photons are dark matter. You can't see a beam of photons from the side (unless there is dust or something for them to interact with) but all that momentum is still there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:13PM (2 children)
That is actually evidence for dark matter. It is no surprise if different galaxies have different amounts of dark matter. Just as you find different amounts of visible matter in different galaxies. But if the reason for the observed behaviour were a modified law of physics, then it should work the same in all galaxies.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:22PM
So random addition and subtraction is the new physics over mathematical formula? Since when?
Yes, different galaxies would need different amounts, but not random kludge amounts: a formula would be there to show how MUCH dak matter would be needed, not guessing.
Guessing MAKES it a kludge, just as 1+1=7...no...5..no...3..no...1...no...guess again...2! Yes 1+1=2!
QI says 1+1=2...no guessing needed.
Dark matter is a kludge.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:36AM
No, it's evidence of something. Declaring the value of something as fact without being able to prove it is where anyone with a favorite theory and rejecting others is at today. Dark matter is no more evidence-based than a theist explanation at this point. Personally, I prefer to think it's all a simulation and the discrepancies we see are caused by some noob coder buggering the math up and having to add some completely inconsistent code to make things work at all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:35PM (3 children)
No, quite the opposite. From the summary, emphasis by me:
So, the best results so far are achieved by assuming that dark matter has even more influence than previously thought.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:58PM (2 children)
Well, see, I don't look at that as the ever changing imaginary hand wavy 'dark matter': I would look at that as 'matter'. Put ordinary matter with QI and you have galaxy formation and the galaxies don't fly apart because of inertia, not hand waving.
Dark matter is a kludge. We need it to die or further scientific progress will die.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:20PM (1 child)
Well, in the simulations it is perfectly known if there is dark matter and how much, as you put all the matter in yourself. And what this summary reports is that those simulations that best match observed data about satellite galaxy numbers and orbits do contain dark matter. There's nothing to argue about that fact.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:51PM
Simulations say whatever you input that matches what you want it to match make a match. Well golly, thas is facts, fo' sure!
So, 1+1=600 cos that's what I want it to be and das a fact! 1+1=600: the simulation say so!
"There's nothing to argue about that fact."
Yuh! Dere is, Gomer!
What you are saying is not facts. Randomly adding dark matter here and there is NOT science: it is a shell game, a fake.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by NateMich on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:39PM (8 children)
I've always felt that dark matter is just like the luminiferous ether.
It doesn't exist, but inventing it makes our theories work.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:59PM (5 children)
You are correct, sir!
Read
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
for REAL science and scientific method at work.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 30 2019, @07:44PM (2 children)
Okay, I looked over it for about a half hour. I also spent another 15 minutes reading other commentary on this theory.
I've heard of QI and this guy several years back, but I never looked into it in great detail. Now the guy's got a DARPA grant to test his theory practically. Good for him! Seriously. If it pans out, he will be heralded as the next Einstein, the wonder who could see past everything that thousands of other scientists could not. Actually, it would be bigger than Einstein, since there were a number of other physicists and mathematicians playing around with stuff like special and general relativity ideas before Einstein came along -- Einstein brought it all together. But this guy -- he's apparently been actively shunned by the scientific establishment. What a coup if he turns out to be right!!
And I'll give him that with all seriousness. Let him test his theory. And I will be the first to congratulate him if it turns out.
But, I'll be honest, from what I've seen so far, it doesn't bode well. This guy shows the patterns of a crank. If I had to give odds, I'd say there's ~2% possibility that his DARPA grant will show him to be an unparalleled genius, 98% that he's just a crank.
Why do I say that? I'll admit I haven't had time to investigate the theory in detail, though I get the gist of it. What worries me is the pattern of other stuff surrounding it. He promotes his ideas on a personal blog and gave a TED talk. His ideas promise "energy from nothing" that would revolutionize space travel. I read a post there where he claims he hasn't had a paper accepted at a conference since 2012, and other physicists won't even return his emails. Other prominent physicists have derided his ideas, no because of what they seem to model well, but because they not only do away with dark matter, but also break a lot of standard physics theories (like relativity) that have huge empirical support. When challenged in the press on how his theories break Relativity, he himself admits on his blog that there would be a lot of work required to bridge the gaps between his theory and GR (again, which has lot of well-tested empirical support) -- but he says it isn't a high priority for him to deal with such inconsistencies... and then blames the lack of attention to this to the fact that other physicists ignore his emails, or else he could perhaps collaborate with them and get them to solve the problem of connecting his theory to the rest of standard physics. (He doesn't quite put it so starkly, but that's the implication.)
I've personally known people like this over the years -- people with outrageous ideas that claim to completely overturn a field of study. One guy I am thinking of made a big splash in his field starting about 15 years ago, when he started standing up at conferences and giving talks declaring that all the standard ideas were wrong, and/or that his theory was an overarching theory that united everyone else's ideas. He was a jerk who got incredibly defensive when questioned. He thus alienated other scholars. He started complaining that nobody would publish his research, because he started redefining common terms to fit his own weird theory, and editors (rightly) challenged him and said it was at best confusing to do this and at worst made his theory a hodge-podge of gobbledygook.
Eventually, he made it big by going outside his field and publishing in a more prominent journal outside his main field, where the editors obviously didn't realize that most of the grandiose claims he was making were exaggerated. It's not that he was wrong exactly about his ideas (though he was wrong about groundbreaking they supposedly were, a statement he kept repeating) -- it's that he created a kind of diffuse mega-apparatus for understanding several other theories using complex math, but his conceptualization didn't add anything. It was confusing, overly abstract, and really not worth the time. But his grandiose claims were enough to get him a little media attention in the mainstream media, since he now had this article published in a more prominent journal. A couple years later, instead of writing journal articles and debating with other figures, he wrote a big book claiming everyone else in his field was wrong. Eventually, some in the field accepted the more useful aspects of his research (which mostly weren't connected to the grandiose mega-theory), and he calmed down a bit after he got tenure and had kids.
That's someone who wasn't quite a crank, but he did push the boundaries of "conspiracy theory" in the way he thought the field was persecuting him and refusing to listen to him, when in reality he didn't care about how his theory might intersect with others in his field, and he took to becoming defensive, acting like a jerk, and refusing to acknowledge criticisms, even when they were quite reasonable.
I was involved another time in publishing a rebuttal (along with a colleague) against a true crank. Once again, someone who went away from his original field of study. He managed to get an article published in a prominent journal on a topic that was again a bit out the journal's mainstream, and likely the editors didn't send it out to the right people for review. So, it got published, and suddenly it was the talk of various media outlets for two days. Except it was complete BS, founded on complete misunderstandings of fundamental concepts in the field, along with some incredibly statistical errors in his methodology that ensured he'd find patterns wherever he looked for them.
Although my colleague and I submitted a rebuttal to the journal within two weeks after the story got media attention, the journal dragged its feet in reviewing it, probably because they didn't want the embarrassment of the fact that they had published something so questionable. Eventually, our rebuttal was published, but the crank went on as if nothing had happened. He gave talks, and he convinced a smaller publisher to accept a book on his topic. I was asked to review it, but I declined: our rebuttal was so utterly clear to anyone who knew anything about the topic that it should have stood alone to ruin the ideas. But he kept going on as if nothing had happened. The mainstream media of course never published anything about a debunking of this story they had plastered everywhere, so this guy could still convince people (particularly those outside his subfield) that his work was legit. I don't really know what happened to him -- the ideas he had had no practical significance, so I don't really care anymore. (I do still get a few emails every year from scholars who have discovered my rebuttal and are mostly just floored that this guy still maintains any credibility as a scholar in any field.)
So, I've seen cranks. I've known them personally. There's a pattern of reaching a bit outside one's field (this QI guy wasn't trained as a cosmologist or theoretical physicist), followed by denial when papers or conference presentations are rejected, then treating anyone who disagrees with disrespect or presenting their views as strawmen (as you do here, and he does regarding dark matter on his blog -- there are flaws in dark matter theory, but he seems to oversimplify and misrepresent them), followed by a persecution complex that no one will take him seriously, often followed by writing a book or having a blog to promote ideas outside the mainstream research path of peer-reviewed journals. Your QI guy shows a lot of these features. His book was apparently published in 2014, but it has only 7 reviews on Amazon, none of which seems to have been written by an actual physicist (though a couple identify as "physics groupies"). I tried poking around in searches for professional reviews in journals or something, but I see nothing. Which is frankly weird, if his theory is so amazing. (Even if mainstream physicists didn't like it, you'd at least expect a critical review SOMEWHERE debunking it, if anyone thought of it as a serious theory.)
After his DARPA grant award, you don't see a lot of physicists coming to his side either. I know that scholars tend to be attached to their theories, but it's very hard to believe that something this groundbreaking (and potentially amazing for reasons outside of cosmology, such in practical applications of space travel) would be ignored by basically ALL mainstream scholars for no good reason.
I'll withhold judgment until after he has time with his grant to prove or falsify his own theory. But I'm not holding my breath for confirmation.
As for "REAL science" and the "scientific method at work," well, he now has a chance to test his theories. When they bear out (or are falsified), THEN we can say the scientific method is at work. For now, this is just another hypothetical model that needs clear empirical support.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @08:37PM
Einstein was a crank once, also. He had many detractors.
I'm not married to him, lol. If something better comes along, I'd like to know about it.
BUT, It seems far more scientific than dark matter AND his formula fits better than dark matter and MOND: I'll go with that.
But...show me something better. And no, dark matter is not better.
I too hope he pushes science forward (whether through success or failure) instead of backwards like DM is doing.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @12:04AM
So instead of look at the actual work you took all that time to write up your judgement of the person? A heuristic is supposed to be quick... I think you are elevating one to an importance it does not deserve.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 30 2019, @07:57PM (1 child)
One last thing I'll add after an overlong post: there are lots of theories in science that have long histories of not being directly observed for long periods. As I mentioned in another post, the underlying mechanism for gravity wasn't known for centuries after Newton's theory advanced physics (and some would argue we're still sorting it out), but no one is claiming gravity -- an invisible force acting at a distance -- doesn't exist. The atomic model was essential in advancing modern chemistry out of alchemy, as theories about molecules and chemical equations started to be written when no one had directly observed the existence of molecules or atoms. Electrons were postulated to explain electricity long before the structure of the (still invisible) atom was understood in any detail. Huge theories of electromagnetism were built on it. And when unusual results came along that seemed to conflict with theories (e.g., Rutherford's experiments), they didn't conclude that the unseen atoms and electrons didn't exist -- merely that the properties must be more specific and perhaps different than theorized. I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point.
Just because you can't observe something directly doesn't mean it's not there, or that you can't create a detailed mathematical model of it that could lead to advancements in science. You're right that the dark matter theory has some problems, though you tend to overstate or misrepresent them -- it's nowhere near as arbitrary a theory as you imply. Perhaps it will turn out to be like phlogiston or the lumeniferous ether, or perhaps it will turn out to be like so many other scientific theories over the years that modeled unseen things and unseen forces and turned out to be broadly correct.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @08:24PM
Yet, MAYBE gravity DOESN'T exist, at least not as a folding of space thing: maybe gravity is a PUSH, as in QI, the Unruh waves PUSH objects. A planet blocks the Unruh waves from a certain direction, the waves from the other direction push objects TOWARDS the planet.
To me, a PUSH makes more sense than a Folding of space... A 'PULL'.
And where is dark matter not arbitrary? Your other examples had more science behind them than dark matter.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:03PM (1 child)
It's a bit like that screw left on the bench when you're done reassembling.
You can't figure out where it could possibly go ; you were very careful to put everything together to the best of your abilities.
Yet you know for a fact that it won't work without it.
That doesn't mean that the rest of the build is fundamentally wrong. You're just missing some information to get the complete picture.
/badalogy
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:57PM
No, it's more like they shorted you a wire, but it looks like everything should work if you bung a screw in this hole: except it doesn't work and you are trying to say it should and would if you just add another few here and here and here which makes a kind of a connection like a wire would but it really sucks and sometimes you need to randomly add or take away screws to make it 'work' but it doesn't.....and all you really need is that wire.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @02:21PM
Right!
None of this spooky action at a distance either!
Oh, wait...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 30 2019, @01:23PM (7 children)
When theory said more galaxies but observation was lacking, theory drove in the direction of observation and observation drove in the direction of theory... they overshot. Wonder if it will ever reach equilibrium, and if it does - does theory+observation have any correlation with reality?
When we learn to observe better theory will remake itself again.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @02:20PM (2 children)
This commingling of theory and observation is very dangerous in my opinion. It is far easier than most people realize to come up with a model that is extremely intricate yet self-consistent, and wrong.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:02PM
In machine learning, we refer to that as overfitting.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 30 2019, @04:03PM
And that is what they have found with dark matter, except it is not even self-consistent.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 30 2019, @02:52PM (3 children)
Not necessarily. "Reality" is a tricky thing. The entire rationale behind modern Science -- the essence of the Newtonian Revolution -- was the acceptance that mathematical models were potentially valid without justification in "reality." Newton modeled the universe effectively with gravity -- an unseen force acting at a distance that his critics characterized as mystical or even magical. But the model fit the data, and Newton went to the trouble in later editions of his Principia to argue that that's what's important for science now. Modeling data and making predictions. The model may locate an actual mechanism, or it may leave something unexplained (as gravity basically was for centuries after Newton) but the model worked.
While you have a valid point about confirmation bias and the way it influences studies, data gathering in physics and astronomy tends to be a lot more careful than, say, in designs of medical studies or psychology studies or whatever. Astronomers and cosmologists do pretty much go the way the data leads them.
And yes, that means they will reconsider the theory if they discover more data that contradicts it. What else are they supposed to do?
Honestly, I thought I was a jaded skeptic about most things, but then I read comments here and it put things in perspective. What are cosmologists supposed to do exactly? If they develop theory purely without regard to empirical data to support it (as the advanced forms of string theory go), people complain here about theory without empirical grounding... no falsifiability, therefore no science. If scientists on the other hand respond to empirical data by modifying their theories and even throwing out previous assumptions, you accuse them of confirmation bias. (And the AC who replied to you even thinks it's "dangerous" for scientists to actually compare their theories to empirical data and then correct them! How exactly is science supposed to work?!)
Perhaps we should stop using the word "theory" and just consider the concept of "modeling." That's what scientists do. It's how they make sense of data. Otherwise it's just a bunch of numbers. Sure, confirmation bias is a problem when the sample space is small and/or data collection (and analysis) procedures are created. But here we have a clear example of scientists being SURPRISED by both models and data multiple times. People engaging in confirmation bias don't get "surprised" -- they just see what they want to. And here scientists are responding to new data by trying to figure out how it works... and that involves creating models. (Models which may be flawed and require revision, or even rejection... or they may turn out to be partly right and partly wrong.)
Can I ask how else science is supposed to work for you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 30 2019, @06:41PM (1 child)
Can I ask how else science is supposed to work for you?
For them, science is supposed to confirm whatever it is they already believe regardless of whether it's true or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @07:29PM
Fake news, grant chasing money grubbing "scientists", deep state conspiracy to sell carbon credits!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 31 2019, @01:57AM
Exactly what they are doing, with an extra NdGT dose of "what we think we know is..."
Cosmologists are better than the scientists sponsored by industries with vested interests about admitting that they don't know what they don't know, but, when you lump all "Scientists" together, they come across as a smug bunch of "truth" peddlers who are little more trustworthy than television evangelists.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by mpc755 on Thursday January 31 2019, @04:11PM (10 children)
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.
The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.
Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:27PM (9 children)
OR, inertia keeps the galaxy from flying apart.
Occam's razor.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by mpc755 on Thursday January 31 2019, @07:12PM (8 children)
Displaced dark matter is curved spacetime.
Occam's razor
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:43PM (7 children)
Okay, for a second, forget you think I'm a dick/crazy/stupid/whatever,, and take an unbiased look at this:
Curved space time and GR have problems (this is why they came up with dark matter as well as all the fringe theories like MOND, QI, etc):
But if space ISN'T curved, then something ELSE would have to 'appear' to replace it.
QI acts LIKE gravity, except there is a PUSH instead of a pull.
Bear with the dick for another moment.
A planet blocks Unruh waves from one direction and objects are pushed towards the planet by the waves coming from all the other directions.
A beam of light approaches a star and the 'waves' are blocked from hitting the light by the star: the waves from all other directions push it towards the star.
If the light is approaching the star at an angle, as it is passing by the star, the waves that are not blocked push it towards the star JUST as if space was curved.
A planet orbits a sun because it TRIES to follow a straight course but the Unruh waves push on it from all directions EXCEPT where the sun blocks them: it is pushed on from all other directions except the blocked direction and so is pushed TOWARDS the blocked direction!
To me, this is fascinating.
Space not being curved, but matter acting LIKE it is curved without the problems brought in by the curving of space.
And if time does not exist as a part of space/time (Like Julian Barbour, Mach and Einstein suggests (expanding the work of Einstein (AND Mach) BEFORE he decided the math would be too hard and changed to time being a part of space), then there are no worries about the twin paradox and time travel.
To me, the problems introduced by space-time and dark matter are nullified by something like QI.
There are SO many problems solved just by thinking outside the box that I CAN'T HELP but go outside the box and look around: if QI can be proved, it solves SO MANY PROBLEMS.
Am I married to QI? Far more than dark matter, but I am always looking outside that box: give me something BETTER than dark matter or QI and I will take a look at it.
Dark matter, though: I looked at it and it just seems like a fake. A too easy fix.
I need better...we all need better.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by mpc755 on Friday February 01 2019, @02:51PM (6 children)
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space that is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter.
Space ISN'T curved, dark matter is DISPLACED.
Displacede dark matter IS curved spacetime.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday February 01 2019, @03:32PM (5 children)
So, obviously you have a formula for this displacement, and a formula for how this displacement keeps galaxies from flying apart.
The curvature of space (gravity) has a formula attached to it, why does dark matter not? Because dark matter is an unnecessary kludge developed PURELY to fill in the discrepancies shown by GR.
QI HAS a formula that shows why galaxies don't fly apart.
Why does dark matter not? Because QI is a POSSIBLE solution: dark matter is not.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by mpc755 on Friday February 01 2019, @04:54PM (4 children)
Spacetime is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist in and of itself. Curved spacetime is a geometrical representation of gravity. Curved spacetime geometrically represents the state of displacement of the dark matter.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday February 01 2019, @05:44PM (3 children)
Well, we could do this all day and still not come to any conclusions.
Only time will tell.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by mpc755 on Friday February 01 2019, @05:59PM (2 children)
Or, you could correctly understand curved spacetime is a mathematical construct only and it geometrically represents the state of displacement of the dark matter.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday February 02 2019, @12:31AM (1 child)
Sigh...
you still haven't even PROVED THE EXISTENCE of dark matter, so let's just say dark matter is made up of all the unicorns that have died in the last year, FFS.
GIVE ME A FORMULA THAT PROVES DARK MATTER EXISTS.
No? Then fuck off and stop waving your hands about.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0, Redundant) by mpc755 on Saturday February 02 2019, @06:23PM
The formula already exists in general relativity. The formula describes gravity geometrically. The formula geometrically represents the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter.