Oh i forgot that a guy by Haim Shore came to that conclusion from studying ancient Hebrew and the book of Genesis. — christian2017
Dark matter is supposed to make up 80% of massive matter in order to explain the rotational velocity of galaxies. As accurate mass estimates for galaxies are on-going (e.g. only recently have we realised the abundance of supermassive black holes), it's worth treating with some scepticism. Dark matter is, sceptically, an error between current cosmological estimates of mass and current astronomical measurements of mass. — Kenosha Kid
Don’t we now have direct confirmation of dark matter as a stuff in the universe (WIMPs specifically) from the Bullet Cluster observation? — Pfhorrest
It's not direct evidence, no, but it is a +1 for astronomical estimates of masses, i.e. the gravitational lensing is not consistent with heavier-than-expected baryonic galaxies. It also suggests that dark matter is not a very light WIMP like a neutrino. — Kenosha Kid
However, it is believed that dark matter makes up about 80% of the universe’s mass — christian2017
Cosmology is all guesswork. It's all fiction. — Gregory
correctly distinguished science (which proceeds from not knowing but wanting to find out) from religion (which proceeds from pretending to know and fearing being found out). — Kenosha Kid
Cosmologists, like any other scientist, build theoretical models to test against empirical evidence. If your point is that they do not know in advance that the model is the correct one, then yes, you have correctly distinguished science (which proceeds from not knowing but wanting to find out) from religion (which proceeds from pretending to know and fearing being found out). — Kenosha Kid
Thats a common theme on most forums such as this by religionists and non-religionists. If scientists have problems understanding everything then so do most people on forums like this.
Puking out information from a popular physics book doesn't make us experts.
I'm sure you are aware to the concept that when one question is answered that 10 more questions pop up in its place (a common proverb). Missing one small detail in a concept can throw off the proper conclusion for that concept. This is similar to if we have an equation missing one variable and one coefficient for example. The whole output of the equation or function can change drastically. — tilda-psychist
Thats a common theme on most forums such as this by religionists and non-religionists. If scientists have problems understanding everything then so do most people on forums like this.
Puking out information from a popular physics book doesn't make us experts.
I'm sure you are aware to the concept that when one question is answered that 10 more questions pop up in its place (a common proverb). Missing one small detail in a concept can throw off the proper conclusion for that concept. This is similar to if we have an equation missing one variable and one coefficient for example. The whole output of the equation or function can change drastically.
— tilda-psychist
This is a justification for considering science a work of fiction? Or, to put it another way, how does this relate to what you quoted?
You seem to be taking not knowing something as being seen as inferior. But you just quoted me as saying not knowing is the starting point.
Welcome to the forum by the way :) — Kenosha Kid
Basically i'm saying some people know more than others however there is no end in sight of Scientists still having major discoveries of how the Universe operates and also things that relate to 10 dimensions and beyond. Like i said if we get one variable or coefficient wrong it can change our whole view of reality. — tilda-psychist
Dark matter is supposed to make up 80% of massive matter in order to explain the rotational velocity of galaxies. As accurate mass estimates for galaxies are on-going (e.g. only recently have we realised the abundance of supermassive black holes), it's worth treating with some scepticism. Dark matter is, sceptically, an error between current cosmological estimates of mass and current astronomical measurements of mass. — Kenosha Kid
Basically i'm saying some people know more than others however there is no end in sight of Scientists still having major discoveries of how the Universe operates and also things that relate to 10 dimensions and beyond. Like i said if we get one variable or coefficient wrong it can change our whole view of reality.
— tilda-psychist
Yes, you're right and, as I said, all scientists do is model reality with empirically-verified theory. So while it's right to say our whole "view of reality" (i.e. theoretical model of it) can massively change, the change in what it predicts (phenomena) have to be extremely restricted to match prior observations. The universe may behave as if it has precisely 11 dimensions, say. It might have 111. It might only have 4 or 5. But it behaves like it has 11.
Likewise it behaves as if there's dark matter and dark energy in a universe and otherwise follows current cosmological models. And it will behave differently in future cosmological models. More dark matter, less, none, dark matter made of one thing, dark matter made of fudge. As I said before:
Dark matter is supposed to make up 80% of massive matter in order to explain the rotational velocity of galaxies. As accurate mass estimates for galaxies are on-going (e.g. only recently have we realised the abundance of supermassive black holes), it's worth treating with some scepticism. Dark matter is, sceptically, an error between current cosmological estimates of mass and current astronomical measurements of mass.
— Kenosha Kid — Kenosha Kid
In contemporary inflationary cosmology, the universe isn't "everything that happened after the big bang". The big bang is just an important early event in the history of the universe as we know it (which may be only a small part of the total universe, which may be infinitely old, if eternal inflation is correct). — Pfhorrest
(as Pfhorrest already noted, this is less of a shocking result than it may seem since the "Big Bang" in this context is the post-inflationary period in the inflationary model, not the hypothetical "t=0" spacetime singularity of non-inflationary big bang cosmology often referred to as "the big bang") — Enai De A Lukal
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.