View Single Post
Old June 3 2013, 10:28 AM   #61
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
It is the height of arrogance to think that no one can learn this.
Of course, most people can learn this. It just takes a decade of continuous study. This is the crux of Flying Lemon's argument: credentials and titles don't mean shit, per se. But they show you have been subjected to a harrowing experience of learning and understanding, and so you have a firm grasp of the topic. If are going to study something deep enough to know it as well as a PhD, then you might as well get one.

Vulcan Logician wrote: View Post
Well sorry if I've wasted anyone's time by bringing juvenile ideas into this scholarly setting. Next time I have a half-baked hypothesis, I'll post it in the nether reaches of some science fiction show forum.
Well, if it helps (probably it doesn't), I don't think anything bad about your post. It's just a harmless, weird idea that popped into someone's mid. Also, it has some similarity with brane cosmology, so it's not completely out of the blue. What I'm arguing against is the position of "it doesn't make sense to me (i.e. I don't understand it), so it must be wrong".

Metryq wrote: View Post
Math is just a language, not "truth."
Maths is as "true" as you can get. Literally, you can't make it "truer" than that. But even ignoring that, if you don't speak the language, that would make your opinion about its literature somewhat... limited, don't you think?

Metryq wrote: View Post
But back to the original topic of dark matter, which was created as an ad hoc patch to a cosmology that could not properly account for the structure and movement of galaxies. Dark energy was added after that to balance out problems created by dark matter. Together, these patches make up 95% of the "stuff" in the universe.
On the other hand, why should the stuff in the universe be intuitive, easy to observe and understand for us? That's just anthropocentrism speaking. Quantum mechanics is definitely counter-intuitive and weird, and yet it's both formally correct and highly predictive. The universe isn't limited by the perspectives of puny brains.

Metryq wrote: View Post
The layman sees one group saying, "The universe is non-intuitive and incomprehensible. You'll just have to trust us." Meanwhile, another group of equally degreed and working researchers says, "It doesn't make sense to us, either. We'd like to suggest an alternative model."
Ah, "teach the controversy". I see.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
To paraphrase someone smarter than myself:

What's weird is that there is nothing special about God, and all the talk against him is some irrational dislike that has no grounds. His existence would be no more weird than the existence of normal people, which are already here. There is no reason for all God to interact through the rest of the forces. And whatever is causing the mass discrepancy is not evenly distributed across space, so it's clearly omnipresent and very powerful, and we call omnipresent/powerful things "god" for some reason. If you like you can believe that God is, say, an invisible particle that doesn't interact through any of the fundamental forces except gravity, go for it, but it is theologically the same thing.

If that counterargument was conjured by "someone smarter than yourself", then I weep for thee.

Pavonis wrote: View Post
I wonder if lawyers and physicians have similar "insightful contributions" from non-expert amateurs. Do people just wander into their offices and offer free advice on how to go about their work?
Well, given the popularity of homeopathy and other similar "alternative theories" , I guess they kind of do.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
They took their favorite theory and ran with it simply because nobody managed to prove them wrong.
Which is kind of how science works.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It is in that specific sense that cosmology and theology have begun to grow more and more similar: theories are assumed to be correct based less on corroborating data than on a lack of contradictory data.
I'd love to see the "data" in theology.

Also, given how many confirmed predictions have been carried out based on "dark cosmology", you are talking out of your arse here.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote