Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on April 10, 2008, 06:27:56 pm
-
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/21/2124258.htm?site=science&topic=latest
Your thoughts?
-
*shrugs*
I never really believed Dark Matter/Energy theory anyway...
-
this actually makes since. if you can explain the expanding universe based off of a bunch of time and space warps that naturally occure. we were essentially looking at the universe through one of those bumpy glass bricks.
-
The article says nothing about dark matter. :wtf:
-
Yes, this article has nothing to do with dark matter. Dark energy is something entirely different.
I'd welcome proof that dark matter/dark energy doesn't exist, though -- cosmology has been bogged down in that problem for a very long time.
It's a shame this is only the work of one researcher. It doesn't mean much until a scientific consensus develops.
-
It's a shame this is only the work of one researcher. It doesn't mean much until a scientific consensus develops.
There was pretty widespread consensus on phlogiston and luminiferous aether too.
-
Wait, you mean light isn't carried by the Aether?
-
It's a shame this is only the work of one researcher. It doesn't mean much until a scientific consensus develops.
There was pretty widespread consensus on phlogiston and luminiferous aether too.
The scientific consensus now rather roundly discredits those concepts, though. It's not that the consensus is always right, but that an individual result has to be replicated and tested widely before we can take it too seriously.
I happen to think dark energy and dark matter might end up in the same trash heap as aether or epicycles, though -- seems like the same kind of arbitrary adjustment.
-
I happen to think dark energy and dark matter might end up in the same trash heap as aether or epicycles, though -- seems like the same kind of arbitrary adjustment.
Dark matter? Aether? Is this astrophysics or Metroid Prime 2? :p
-
Dark matter? Aether? Is this astrophysics or Metroid Prime 2? :p
That game sucks.
-
/me begs to differ.
-
It's a shame this is only the work of one researcher. It doesn't mean much until a scientific consensus develops.
There was pretty widespread consensus on phlogiston and luminiferous aether too.
:nod:
I'd also like to mention Einstein and his many oppositors...
-
:wtf:
Einstein's theories were then carefully tested and validated by observation of solar eclipses, orbiting clocks, and other phenomenon. They're still being tested today.
The reason we take them seriously is because a scientific consensus developed.
-
Until that famous eclipse scientists looked at Einstein as if they were looking at a mad person.
-
I think he means back when Einstein was first publishing his theories; he was met with some significant resistance, just like most people when they discover/theorize something revolutionary.
The dark matter theory has been slowly getting some observational backup (mostly from observing galaxy clusters and mergers), but indeed dark energy is still more or less speculation at this point. It should be interesting to see if/how this story develops.
*Watsisname also thinks Metroid Prime 2 was a sweet game*
-
Einstein started a revolution and quickly condemned to death the ideals of philosophers who were relying to much on science(Positivism ?).
-
Einstein started a revolution and quickly condemned to death the ideals of philosophers who were relying to much on science(Positivism ?).
The word you were looking for wasn't positivism. Positivism merely states that science should be based on observable fact.
-
The reason we take them seriously is because a scientific consensus developed.
No, the reason we take them seriously is that they've been proven correct numerous times.
Whenever there's a broad consensus on something, people are reluctant to challenge it. Scientists are not immune from groupthink. They're human, just like everyone else.
-
"It's all JUST a theory!"
*runs*
Whenever there's a broad consensus on something, people are reluctant to challenge it.
I think you misunderstand how a scientific consensus is formed.
-
Einstine's theory clearly states that normal thruster glows should be blue and afterburners should be yellow.
-
And, since mass slows down time, the clocks of observers in voids, where most of the empty space in the universe is, will appear to be ticking faster than the clocks of observers in galaxies.
It is this last feature, he says, that explains why dark energy is unnecessary.
"What we see as cosmic acceleration is an apparent effect, which begins when voids open up. When the universe was very young all the clocks were synchronised but because of the way voids have evolved, the clock rate is variable today," Wiltshire says.
You're telling me noone ****ing thought of this? After 90 years?
-
The reason we take them seriously is because a scientific consensus developed.
No, the reason we take them seriously is that they've been proven correct numerous times.
Whenever there's a broad consensus on something, people are reluctant to challenge it. Scientists are not immune from groupthink. They're human, just like everyone else.
I think we're trying to say the same thing.
What I mean by 'scientific consensus' is 'everyone agrees they've been proven correct numerous times'.
-
Einstine's theory clearly states that normal thruster glows should be blue and afterburners should be yellow.
Then whoever Einstine guy is, he's a crackpot.
-
Einstine's theory clearly states that normal thruster glows should be blue and afterburners should be yellow.
Then whoever Einstine guy is, he's a crackpot.
:lol:
That deserves a medal.
-
In this thread: people don't know Einstine (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=4563). :rolleyes: