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

[LeSedna]

Sexist ?

 

[Terminus]

I was about to search some paper of this caliber to show CGI how he selects his information instead of being objective about them, but I was too tired yesterday to do it myself so thank you.

No problem. I'm not trying to prove GCI wrong per se, or anyone else for that matter, but that story I linked did come out yesterday (or the day before) so I figured it was relevant to this thread no matter which way it leans.

 

[monoxide_child]

there have always been "Christian Scientists" asserting that "science proves intelligent design" and that "carbon dating is wrong" and that "behemoth and leviathan were dinosaurs" and that "the earth is not billions of years old" and that "the entire universe is only 5 days older than Adam" and this seems like it's just another "Christian-Science" thing of Christians again trying to say "Science proves the existence of God"

Behemoth Leviathan and Dragons were NOT dinosaurs
and humans did NOT interact with dinosaurs
anyone who believes this article is a gullible idiot

seriously
is there any one here that is seriously going to say that humans interacted with living dinosaurs??

i noticed that we got a little off topic here
and i still stand by my original opinion that the original post is bullshit
the earth is not "6 days older than Adam"

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

Serious question: (and I am being 100% serious, it is a good question). How long should scientists search for "dark matter"? They thought they found it a few months ago but then they went silent. So now they are looking for a different type of "dark matter" than before.

Hopefully scientists will actually find real honest pure Dark Matter (no quotes) in a year or two. (I wouldn't hold my breath on that btw). But let's suppose for once that I am right and scientists are unable to find "dark matter". At what point do scientists say, "you know what? we can't find it. all our empirical math and data points to the existence of dark matter but it doesn't exist. we need to rethink everything because something fundamental is wrong here."

I am concerned because the way science operates, there is no going back. Everything that has been proven has been proven. According to the math, there should be dark matter. And math is never wrong (I am being serious). But if somehow the math was correct but pointed in the wrong direction from the get-go, then how do you go back and fix it?

Again, I hope they thoroughly and 100% convincingly discover Dark Matter and send me, the EU theoriests, and every other crackpot back with our tails between our legs. But in the case that one of these other fringe, crackpot theories is correct, then is it even possible for science to go back and fix itself?

Let's say the EU is right about plasma being the main driver for universal motion. How would science account for that? Science has already calculated gravity as the main driver. There is no going back is there?

Is there a historical reference we can fall back on? Is there an instance where science has been proven wrong on such a large stage? Remember if gravity is somehow proven wrong then the consequences are enormous. We are not talking about just in the academic world. This would have a huge impact on the economy. Research investors will likely put there funds elsewhere if they found out that a project they are funding was based on less than accurate scientific data.

This is a good question and it concerns me greatly.

 

[~BURNY~]

Oh boy... Not again.

 

[xFkx]

Is there a historical reference we can fall back on? Is there an instance where science has been proven wrong on such a large stage? Remember if gravity is somehow proven wrong then the consequences are enormous. We are not talking about just in the academic world. This would have a huge impact on the economy. Research investors will likely put there funds elsewhere if they found out that a project they are funding was based on less than accurate scientific data.

This is a good question and it concerns me greatly.

I think there were a bunch of guys trying to disprove gravity but they all ended up dead at the bottom of the Eiffel tower

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

It's a valid question.

 

[~BURNY~]

It's a valid answer.

 

[kass]

This mother fucker...





You're really questioning whether science can undergo a paradigm shift? Really?

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

I am not trying to be a smartass here. I don't know why you guys are hating like this. It's a serious question. I don't know what the answer is and that is why I am asking. It seems like if gravity were ever proved "wrong" then all hell would break loose. I don't know though. Has there been a precedent like this? In recent years scientists seem to be good at finding what they are looking for (ie black holes and Higgs boson). What if they don't find "dark matter"? So much of cosmology is dependent on dark matter. How long can science go without it? I guess that is my question.

 

[SocialNumb]

Take your shit to a philosophy forum.

Right? No?


bar, cool.

 

[Jind]

Serious question: (and I am being 100% serious, it is a good question). How long should scientists search for "dark matter"? They thought they found it a few months ago but then they went silent. So now they are looking for a different type of "dark matter" than before.

Hopefully scientists will actually find real honest pure Dark Matter (no quotes) in a year or two. (I wouldn't hold my breath on that btw). But let's suppose for once that I am right and scientists are unable to find "dark matter". At what point do scientists say, "you know what? we can't find it. all our empirical math and data points to the existence of dark matter but it doesn't exist. we need to rethink everything because something fundamental is wrong here."

I am concerned because the way science operates, there is no going back. Everything that has been proven has been proven. According to the math, there should be dark matter. And math is never wrong (I am being serious). But if somehow the math was correct but pointed in the wrong direction from the get-go, then how do you go back and fix it?

Again, I hope they thoroughly and 100% convincingly discover Dark Matter and send me, the EU theoriests, and every other crackpot back with our tails between our legs. But in the case that one of these other fringe, crackpot theories is correct, then is it even possible for science to go back and fix itself?

Let's say the EU is right about plasma being the main driver for universal motion. How would science account for that? Science has already calculated gravity as the main driver. There is no going back is there?

Is there a historical reference we can fall back on? Is there an instance where science has been proven wrong on such a large stage? Remember if gravity is somehow proven wrong then the consequences are enormous. We are not talking about just in the academic world. This would have a huge impact on the economy. Research investors will likely put there funds elsewhere if they found out that a project they are funding was based on less than accurate scientific data.

This is a good question and it concerns me greatly.

How many times has it been said in a variety of threads about science and related topics.... SCIENCE HAS THE CAPABILITY ( and necessity) TO ADAPT TO NEW AND CHANGING DATA!!! That is at the heart of how the scientific method works. You don't just pick an arbitrary date to "throw out the baby with the bathwater".

Alternative theories will always be present, but... and it's a big but... "difficulty proving one does not true the others make." (Imagine that in my best Yoda voice)

And by the way - the saying is "numbers don't lie" but, math can indeed be wrong, not to mention the fact that numbers can be used to present any picture desired as it depends upon the numbers you've chosen to "utilized" and how they are presented as "truth". Just saying...

 

[Jind]

I am not trying to be a smartass here. I don't know why you guys are hating like this. It's a serious question. I don't know what the answer is and that is why I am asking. It seems like if gravity were ever proved "wrong" then all hell would break loose. I don't know though. Has there been a precedent like this? In recent years scientists seem to be good at finding what they are looking for (ie black holes and Higgs boson). What if they don't find "dark matter"? So much of cosmology is dependent on dark matter. How long can science go without it? I guess that is my question.

I don't mean to be an ass, but do you really expect any of us here on this forum to provide definitive answers to these cutting edge scientific questions? Scientists much smarter than us are grappling with these very concepts, perhaps as their lifelong goals, seeking answers to these questions each and every hour of each and every day - and you think one of us is going to provide you the answer to your questions. Really?

Truthfully I suspect you simply like pseudo-intellectual debate about sometimes off the wall topics. Trust me I have no issue with debate and readily accept that what I offer is simply my understanding of these subjects and not to be taken as anything but personal observations and in some cases probably incorrect, but they are certainly not to be taken as THE ANSWER to these questions way above my (and I suspect the majority contributing) pay grade.

So - basically I'm unsure how it is that you think one of us will provide the definitive answer needed to set your mind at ease.

Overall I suspect that tomorrow I will wake up and, as a general operational rule, the things we know will stay the same and the things we don't will continually be sought after. I'll still go to work, pay my bills, come here to chat, pet my dogs, eat a few meals, tell my wife I love her... These big questions will continue on without causing me great concern.

 

[JBroll]

Serious question: (and I am being 100% serious, it is a good question). How long should scientists search for "dark matter"? They thought they found it a few months ago but then they went silent. So now they are looking for a different type of "dark matter" than before.

Once again, what's going on has evaded you completely. 'Discovering dark matter' doesn't mean what you think it does - it's not like we're going through candidates like

"Pink, furry, smells of cheese... not there.

Purple, furry, smells slightly less of cheese... also not there.

...

Pink, not particularly furry, possibly smells faintly of cheese... pending."

'Dark Matter' itself is the term used for something - whatever it is - that accounts for discrepancies between what's observed and what we predict based on what we know. It's 'dark' because it doesn't interact with light, and actually people have moved on to calling it 'dark energy' because of technical reasons. You basically don't understand the search at its simplest level, from what I can tell.

Hopefully scientists will actually find real honest pure Dark Matter (no quotes) in a year or two. (I wouldn't hold my breath on that btw). But let's suppose for once that I am right and scientists are unable to find "dark matter". At what point do scientists say, "you know what? we can't find it. all our empirical math and data points to the existence of dark matter but it doesn't exist. we need to rethink everything because something fundamental is wrong here."

Congratulations on basic science. That's what *everyone already does*. Have you not seen the bazillions of different theories unifying gravity and the other fundamental forces?

I am concerned because the way science operates, there is no going back.

Wrong.

Everything that has been proven has been proven.

Entirely tautological, so this is as useless as something that's wrong without even the decency to be properly incorrect.

According to the math, there should be dark matter. And math is never wrong (I am being serious). But if somehow the math was correct but pointed in the wrong direction from the get-go, then how do you go back and fix it?

Build a new theory, test the new theory, see what happens.

Again, I hope they thoroughly and 100% convincingly discover Dark Matter and send me, the EU theoriests, and every other crackpot back with our tails between our legs. But in the case that one of these other fringe, crackpot theories is correct, then is it even possible for science to go back and fix itself?

It's hard to say, because obviously at no point in history has science had to correct or revise any of its statements, but should that horrible day ever come I think we'll cope somehow.

Let's say the EU is right about plasma being the main driver for universal motion. How would science account for that? Science has already calculated gravity as the main driver. There is no going back is there?

In order... no, I won't, because that sentence as you've stated it is correct only in a grammatical sense and conceptually you're talking a lot of nonsense... cf. previous... cf. previous... and yes, there absolutely is, and if the possibility of a change in science seems like unfamiliar territory to you then you have simply actively unlearned the history of science.

Is there a historical reference we can fall back on? Is there an instance where science has been proven wrong on such a large stage?

Classical mechanics versus relativity versus quantum mechanics (partially resolved), the ether, and... can't you just get a book for this?

This is a good question (snip)

No, it isn't. It really, truly isn't, and it only seems that way because you've basically developed brain-Teflon and developed such a thorough lack of understanding beyond the construction of sentences that artificial intelligence textbooks worldwide can probably use you as a counterexample for any statement whatsoever.

and it concerns me greatly.

It only does because you're completely clueless... not just about the possible futures of science, but also the basic principles and apparently literally any of the history behind it. It concerns me greatly that your 'talking' to 'reading apparently anything that isn't bullshit, even when directed clearly to reputable sources that would have saved us all the trouble of answering questions schoolchildren could answer' ratio is so enthusiastically the opposite of what it should be.

Go away until you've caught up on the basics.

Jef

 

[drew_drummer]

The problem is GGI thinks that throughout the entirety of this thread that people have been emotionally hyped and thus attacked him. He doesn't quite understand that it is his lack of logical and critical thinking skills that we object to. That's why he is now prefacing with "no but dudes seriously I hope they find it!" because in his mind, he feels that will win us over to his side.

There is no point in arguing with potheads!!

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

Build a new theory, test the new theory, see what happens.

^This is what concerns me. If there is no physical dark matter, and it turns out that the best candidate is something else, like some new plasma cosmology or something dealing with a new form of time, or some other theory that would be labeled "crackpot" right now, then I don't think your suggestion would be possible. Whoever proposes the "correct" theory will probably be labeled as a fringe scientist. And who is going to fund testing for a fringe scientist?

 

[LeSedna]

If the fringe scientist is able to put up together a solid explanation of what he is intending to do and for what reason, there is little reason why he wouldn't get the funding.

Also

like some new plasma cosmology or something dealing with a new form of time

You really like "beautiful" words don't you ? I don't even see what you are referencing has to do with dark matter. You just wanna fall for the voodoo side of things. If dark matter is called "matter" it is because in the calculation there is a gap which has the units of a matter. A hole that has to be filled, and its units and properties are those of matter. Can you understand now why they are searching something that can account for matter ? And since matter and energy are intricately linked, I'm not surprised JBroll mentionned some people are going the route of dark "energy".

 

[xFkx]

^This is what concerns me. If there is no physical dark matter, and it turns out that the best candidate is something else, like some new plasma cosmology or something dealing with a new form of time, or some other theory that would be labeled "crackpot" right now

well, if my basic understating of quantum physics is sort of correct, there really isn't any physical matter at all, just a set of quantum interactions and reactions. So I wouldn't be worried about the absence of antimatter either. I have no idea what a plasma cosmology is though

 

[Mutant]

You are being cruel to GGI by bumping this thread...

 

[~BURNY~]

GGI doesn't comprehend the most basic principle of science.
Building a theory doesn't mean you decide the moon might be made of cheese and eventually try to prove it, that's how creationism and especially "intelligent design" works.
You need to observe first.