Dark Matter May Not Exist

Climber said:
Yep; however, apparently everyone is now a quadruple major in computer engineering, quantum science, constitutional law, and video game designer.

Relax though, it was a joke :eek:
Click to expand...

I will find you and I will... :D

Quantum Lawyers.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
I can understand the theory. This is a method to explain effects without a measurable or observable cause. But the PROBLEM is when you swerve into this you are not talking about SCIENCE you are talking about metaphysics. Scientist are very quick to dismiss anything of a metaphysical nature because you cannot measure it, observe it, etc,etc. So any discussion of God as a prime mover is dismissed.
But then you have things like dark matter, big bang, silly string theory, and the rest that does not pass this same test. No, that is science, not because they can prove it; because they say so.
Click to expand...

Scientists never considered things like dark matter or big bang theory as serious. Basically they need an explanation of what they see in space. Galaxy's cluster fucked together? Gravity is the dominant force, so Dark Matter was invented to explain it. Galaxy's moving away from each other? Dark energy was invited.

Same with big bang. Scientists found a lot of heat radiation in the universe. So much that the only plausible explanation was a huge explosion. Maybe one big enough to create the universe? Hence Big Bang theory.

There are many competing theories as to why we see these things in the universe, but god is not one of them. Might as well say unicorns hold the universe together at that point.
 
Ashbringer said:
There are many competing theories as to why we see these things in the universe, but god is not one of them. Might as well say unicorns hold the universe together at that point.
Click to expand...

Be serious ... all the unicorns are working in the Apple factories building idevices ... no way they could hold the universe together :p
 
Ducman69 said:
...can quickly and easily be proven false with simple scientific tests (you can very easily prove for example that prayer has no statistically significant effect on the outcome of an event, invalidating one of the primary practices of any religion).
Click to expand...

I don't want to start a holy war, pardon the pun. But religions do not claim that praying will result in action. Your example is poor, and you don't even word it scientifically. Don't use bad science and bad examples to 'fight' religion. If you want to provide solid science, no issues, but don't use bad science, it's full of holes.

Science doesn't prove, it disproves and theorizes. For your little 'experiment' to have meaning, someone from a religious viewpoint would have to theorize that 'praying changes outcomes of events'. Hasn't been claimed.
 
And I say to you ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you -- Luke 11:9
 
I've always found the theory sketchy at best. I more believe string and quantum theory better.

I also have an issue with black holes, not that I don't think they exist but the way people explain them.
 
Sly said:
And I say to you ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you -- Luke 11:9
Click to expand...

I don't want to get in to religious debates, but I dislike the quoting of passages taken out of context just like I dislike people taking scientific theories and hypotheses out of context. Context matters. That passage doesn't say "ask for any physical thing and it will be given to you or else God doesn't exist". Jesus was asked how to pray, and so gave the Lord's prayer (forgive our trespasses, you kingdom come, daily bread, etc). After telling how to pray, he likens it to going to a friend at night to get food and the door being open. Then comes the passage you quoted, followed by the famous line of a son asking for bread/fish/egg and a father wouldn't give stone/serpent/scorpion.

Let's say it was written as a scientific theory of "X must happen or Y is not true". You extrapolated what X is meant to be (pray for shit and it'll happen, even though the passage talks about a specific way to pray and then talks generally about food, knocking and opening, seeking and finding). When you write a scientific theory, you have to explicitly list your assumptions and your conditions, this passage is not written as a scientific theory, you've applied your own assumptions and conditions.
 
I'll add to that and say it's actually not easy to scientifically disprove the bible without using poor science because that would assume the bible is written in the same way as good science should be written. Science should be written as disprovable models, the bible is not written as such and the only way to make it so is to take passages (usually out of their own context let alone the context of the bible as a whole) and apply your own assumptions and conditions to turn it in to a disprovable model.

If you look at a science analogy, "when an object is impulsively started, rotation is generated". That is a key theory in what I'm currently researching. Of course, I haven't told you what the object is, what medium it is in and what sort of rotation is generated, so it's presented in a way that is not good science, for that you'd have to read the whole context in which it was written. On it's own, it's easy to disprove, because I didn't actually list my assumptions and conditions for which that model is believed to be true, you can extrapolate whatever assumptions and conditions you like and then it's easy to disprove.
 
They say so so it must be true !

After all, we've traveled all the known Galaxies, discussed it with alien races, and come to a solid conclusion.

Oh, wait...
 
@Tudz
True, religious beliefs are subject to interpretation, but then that's the official interpretation from the church and my old catholic school. If you want further clarification, see your Pastor, he does a good job putting it into context.
 
stevedave said:
The creators of the dark matter theory should of just put it in a religious text instead of a scientific text then it would be true for ever despite what facts and formulas disprove it.
Click to expand...

A hypothesis is part of the scientific method.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
I can understand the theory. This is a method to explain effects without a measurable or observable cause. But the PROBLEM is when you swerve into this you are not talking about SCIENCE you are talking about metaphysics. Scientist are very quick to dismiss anything of a metaphysical nature because you cannot measure it, observe it, etc,etc. So any discussion of God as a prime mover is dismissed.
But then you have things like dark matter, big bang, silly string theory, and the rest that does not pass this same test. No, that is science, not because they can prove it; because they say so.
Click to expand...

Dark matter is a theory to explain OBSERVATIONS. Dark matter can be measured and its effects observed. The big bang is also a theory to explain OBSERVATIONS...it can be measured and it makes predictions. String theory can at least potentially be measured and is also predicted by math. I don't think you know what science is.
 
BGK said:
Dark matter is a theory to explain OBSERVATIONS. Dark matter can be measured and its effects observed. The big bang is also a theory to explain OBSERVATIONS...it can be measured and it makes predictions. String theory can at least potentially be measured and is also predicted by math. I don't think you know what science is.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's also worth noting that most of the science behind cosmology are principles that can be reproduced here in the lab on Earth. Stuff like the emission spectra, redshifts, motions of the stars/galaxies, etc. are all reproducible in the lab. It's also very strong evidence to support the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. These theories aren't just made up out of nowhere and have an educated basis behind them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top