View Single Post
Old June 4 2013, 10:11 AM   #74
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
To complete the analogy, we're talking about a "box"
Your analogy is bunk. You are assuming a whole bunch of "common sense" similarities between situations that have no reason to be in relation to one another. That, to quote yourself, is bad science.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
My feeling is that scientists are attacking the more fanciful and exotic theory but never sufficiently ruled out the simpler ones.
I appreciate your feeling. I'll take it in due consideration.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
We did, and guess what? It was in agreement with a cold dark matter scenario.
Not exactly. What they found -- in various studies in the early 2000s -- was there was no direct evidence for the alternate explanations, which in a way came down to special pleading for dark matter.
Which, as I said, is kind of how science works. We work with the current paradigm, until a better paradigm comes along. Strong emphasis on better. We don't throw it away "just because".


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Not that I agreed with this particular explanation, but back in 2002 I read a paper in an astronomy journal that sought to debunk the theory that the higher-than-expected angular velocity of distant galaxies could be better explained by a higher-than-predicted population of large brown dwarfs and/or black holes and neutron stars that do not produce strong x-ray signals. The author called that theory "spurious" and concluded -- I kid you not -- that the lack of confirmed brown dwarfs in the Milky Way disproved this theory, and simply ignored the point about black holes/neutron stars.
Probably because the population of black holes/neutron stars/brown dwarfs needed to explain the behaviour was thousands of time higher the upper end of expected interval determined from stellar evolution.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Actually there are dozens of theories, many of which are in the process of being tested as we speak. Dark matter isn't the most plausible one, it's merely the most popular.
And when they'll start giving some results, I'll be overjoyed. Until then, business as usual.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's also worth pointing out that modified gravity is consistent with virtually ALL of those observations. The only reason scientists question modified gravity is because they're uncomfortable with the idea that general relativity may be at least partially incorrect and/or inapplicable. Relativity itself has become a kind of academic sacred cow that scientists and engineers are reluctant to give the appearance of questioning, even when the theory itself is legitimately inapplicable.
That's bunk. Astrophysicists wold be thrilled to find a hole in GR. We are a cutthroat bunch. We crave dismantling other people's theories. That's how we work. Prove good ol' Albert wrong? That would make any scientist cream his pants. The fact that nobody has been able to do that so far is a testament to the robustness of GR.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote