Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off

First, the problem with the Voyager spacecraft is that they had a nonlinear route. They bounced around the solar system in a zig-zag fashion, so there are too many variables to determine whether they have any anomalies. Pioneer spacecraft had a much simpler route, and that's why their data makes no sense. It has been a mystery for a couple decades.

Second, all of our extragalactic observations, 100%, every single one of them, have been from within our solar system, and 99.999% of our observations have been from earth. All of our theorems have been created based on our observations. I have done plenty of reading and searching (including textbooks) and I have not found one scientist who has questioned our observations. They acknowledge the possibility that our theory of gravity is wrong. In fact they all agree that we fail to understand gravity. However, they NEVER say that this failure is due to faulty observations. Never. Instead, they believe that our observations and equations are correct and the first problem to look at is missing mass.

Yet historically, when we make a major discovery around gravity or the cosmos, it has always been our observations that have been incorrect. Why do we cling so vehemently to our observations when there is such clear evidence that they are wrong?
 
We just discovered that the Andromeda galaxy has a pancake of smaller dwarf galaxies surrounding it. Our "Dark Matter" models cannot explain it. This is our next door neighbor yet we have no idea what the fuck is going on there. If we cannot tell what our neighbor is doing, how can we be so sure that "Dark Matter" is needed to explain all the distant galaxies. Sounds like scientists may finally be waking up:

"This tells us that this hierarchical buildup that gravitational simulations predict isn't quite right -- as structures like this 'andromeda pancake' never happen in the simulations. We may not understand gravity as well as many would like to believe."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103113846.htm
 
lol, in 5 years, everything you guys are talking will be revised. Imagine 20 years from now. When I was in elementary school, Pluto was a planet, now its not. The formation of the moon taught by my middle school teacher ended up being wrong (replaced by a stronger theory). Science is great, I love it, but theres no reason to get bent out of shape for it. Keep an open mind.
 
GGI, you're beating a dead horse. No one has claimed the dark matter exists nor knows how it is, no one has said "we know gravitation perfectly". That's fucking why people are working on it and that's why the word "theory" is used, so go attend a 5 year physics/math class, then take a 2 year specialty on astrophysics maybe, read a few books and chat with a few legit scientists, and then criticise as much as you want. Until then, stop pointing at links which funnily don't even go in your direction (showing scientists can change their mind through observation and create better models is only giving them more credit) because that's the whole point of the scientific method. Posting links to any article that says "we got an unpredicted result" have nothing to do with "we're fucking morons and thought we were 100% right"

If you think taking this 5 years lesson is gonna close your mind as opposed to what you are now and mislead you in the long term... then please go on thinking scientists are stupid and useless but do it alone

@XxSicRockerxX : just a note about Pluto, it's just terminology. About the rest, I'm a firm believer we should continue teaching what we know at the time when we know it, even knowing in 10 years it could be changing. If not then it's not even worth doing science. Current paradigm of technology is the closest thing we will ever have at a present moment, so let's use it, otherwise what is the point in the first place.
 



Some basic content here, but mostly i'm posting it to showcase the attitude. We don't know how the universe works and we don't claim to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This speaks for itself, good job science, I feel real good about Dark Matter after reading this:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-revolutionary-theory-dark.html
"...Raklev is now trying to prove that dark matter consists of gravitinos..."

"'The gravitino is the hypothetical, supersymmetric partner of the hypothetical particle graviton, so it is also impossible to predict a more hypothetical particle than this,' laughs Raklev."
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
This speaks for itself, good job science, I feel real good about Dark Matter after reading this:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-revolutionary-theory-dark.html
"...Raklev is now trying to prove that dark matter consists of gravitinos..."

"'The gravitino is the hypothetical, supersymmetric partner of the hypothetical particle graviton, so it is also impossible to predict a more hypothetical particle than this,' laughs Raklev."
Click to expand...

There are a lot of cool sound-bites on that page. I like how you just took one of them though. :guh:
 
You guys are mocking me for not understanding how science works. Yet you look at how science works and it makes no sense at all. Science is trying to explain the already hypothetical "Dark Matter" by coming up with the most hypothetical particle possible. In short, they are pulling shit out of their ass and calling it science.

If I pulled their quote out of context, I will be happy to edit this post.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
You guys are mocking me for not understanding how science works. Yet you look at how science works and it makes no sense at all. Science is trying to explain the already hypothetical "Dark Matter" by coming up with the most hypothetical particle possible. In short, they are pulling shit out of their ass and calling it science.

If I pulled their quote out of context, I will be happy to edit this post.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
Why would scientists favor this hyper-hypothetical theory over a much more simple, elegant "Maybe time and gravity work differently" theory?
Click to expand...

Good idea. Try it. Publish your findings. You won't be the first, but maybe you have some new insights to share.

I'm not joking.

If you think you have a good idea then you need to follow it up. Or if you don't want to put in the time and effort, find a theoretical physics genius to do it.

Innovation is driven by people having new ideas and then knuckling down to making them work. If you think you've spotted something that people haven't already, then it is pretty much your duty to human knowledge to explore it.
 
My only good idea is that we should consider spending less resources trying to find "Dark Matter" and more resources double-checking our current laws and theories. Perhaps after doing so there will no longer be a need for "Dark Matter."

This sort of problem is not limited to astronomy. There is a worse problem going on right here on Earth, largely ignored.

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/

"... Clearly the belief that there is no scientific paradox regarding the exceptionally large dinosaurs and pterosaurs is incorrect. Yet the paleontology community has no means of saving face while backing down from their position, and so they continue to mislead the public by denying the paradox. ..."

You could imagine the consequences if this guy is correct. If the earth's atmosphere had 2/3 the density of water when dinosaurs existed, it would shatter everything we know about science. We would have to rethink everything all over again. Who would fund that? What would it do to all the funding that our researchers are dependent upon? Crazy as I am, if I was a department chair at a university, I would not authorize such controversial research at the risk of losing my job and ability to feed my family.
 
This is nothing controversial nor nothing new, "mouse to elephant" and blabla. Except your link mentions 347 times higher pressure (667kg/m3 for a gas - insert facepalm here -). Talking about 2/3 of water density is laughable since it makes it a liquid instead of a simple gas, then why bother having wings instead of being a fish ? Explain trees ?
Something like a few bars would be more than enough to explain why a dino could fly and still not raise the question "but then why didn't they swim in the air instead since it would basically mean the air was an ocean". At least, post something with decent physics instead in the proof calculations, like this (Plus, it features my plane, which is a reason good enough for me to quote it :) http://levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaurs.htm ).

You're making it sound like this is something obscure and genius, while there are people studying it, it's not groundbreaking as an idea and not "unkown" and is one of the common explanations that have yet to be proven, I knew this one when I was a kid already (yeah I was a nerd in astronomy, dinosaurs, planes, and kid physics so go figure :p). It faces many problems while only solving one or two, that's why for the moment it has not been proven yet to an acceptable level. Doesn't mean it's not true, it only means if this is true they have to explain how the metabolism would make other entities plausible at the same time and blabla.

Until it's proven, it won't be taught at school. If you think we should teach every other unproven theory at school to kids, please never become a teacher.

Oh and for the record, how do you want to cross check if the current theory is correct... if it is not by conflicting it with its limits ? It's by searching for something expected by maths that we discover if it exists or if the probabilities of its absence so far to highlight a problem in the theories are high. You are not gonna throw out of a hat "there is a problem here" if you... don't see a problem there. At the moment, they do, there is a whole proportion of mass missing that apparently affect calculations while we can't detect it. Here you go, problem, research, proof or counter proof, and hopefully someday, an answer to that, and a move on to the next problem Without the dark matter problem, you wouldn't be questioning current physics as much. So it's only positive, I still don't know months after you opened this thread what you are trying to achieve, or if you even know what you are talking about, or if you even know when/if what you say is even making your point and not science's one, even.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
My only good idea is that we should consider spending less resources trying to find "Dark Matter" and more resources double-checking our current laws and theories. Perhaps after doing so there will no longer be a need for "Dark Matter."

This sort of problem is not limited to astronomy. There is a worse problem going on right here on Earth, largely ignored.

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/

"... Clearly the belief that there is no scientific paradox regarding the exceptionally large dinosaurs and pterosaurs is incorrect. Yet the paleontology community has no means of saving face while backing down from their position, and so they continue to mislead the public by denying the paradox. ..."

You could imagine the consequences if this guy is correct. If the earth's atmosphere had 2/3 the density of water when dinosaurs existed, it would shatter everything we know about science. We would have to rethink everything all over again. Who would fund that? What would it do to all the funding that our researchers are dependent upon? Crazy as I am, if I was a department chair at a university, I would not authorize such controversial research at the risk of losing my job and ability to feed my family.
Click to expand...

You really NEED everything to be a conspiracy don't you.


Well, let me invent some more for you:

The earth is actually the centre of the solar system, but NASA is keeping it covered up in order to save face and preserve their funding.

Political rallies are all faked for the camera.

Osama bin Laden and Barrack Obama are fucking, the assassination was a fake so they could finally be together.

Electricity isn't actually made in power stations, it comes from mass milk farming fairies, but it's kept covered up because people would complain about the supernatural-creature abuse.

Mummy says that bleach is poisonous because she just wants to drink it all herself.



You sir, are nothing short of a first class nutcase. There are so many real conspiracies out there, it is EXCEEDINGLY infuriating that there are armies of people who are dedicated to uncovering them but instead waste their lives inventing non-existant ones.
 
LeSedna said:
This is nothing controversial nor nothing new, "mouse to elephant" and blabla. You're making it sound like this is something obscure and genius, while there are people studying it, it's not groundbreaking as an idea and not "unkown" and is one of the common explanations that have yet to be proven, I knew this one when I was a kid already (yeah I was a nerd in astronomy, dinosaurs, planes, and kid physics so go figure :p). It faces many problems while only solving one or two, that's why for the moment it has not been proven yet to an acceptable level. Doesn't mean it's not true, it only means if this is true they have to explain how the metabolism would make other entities plausible at the same time and blabla.
.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of it. And google searches turn nothing up on this. If this has been studied anywhere, please point me to it because I looked and was unable to find anything on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back