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

^Interesting. I had not heard that.

Mother fucker. I am so frustrated with this whole thing. You know what needs to happen? They need to go back and retest all their formulas and theories. There has to be a couple of them that are wrong. It is the only explanation. Something has to be wrong. Are they using 80 year old theories/equations? Are we sure that these theories/equations still work the same as they did 80 years ago? ...IMO either the speed of light, redshift, gravity, time, radiation, something there has to be wrong. I think these new discoveries keep going in circles because they are trying to explain their observations with flawed theories/equations. It's the only explanation. But scientists can't come out and say it or else they'll risk losing their job. I firmly believe that. Go ahead and call me retarded. I need to get laid.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/oldest-galaxy-distant-star-system-hubble-photos_n_2287961.html

Here you go. This is a perfect example. These guys remeasured their "oldest" galaxy (hmmm, btw what could have urged them to remeasure a galaxy they already mea$$$$$$$?) and found that their measurements had changed.
Click to expand...

Haven't read the original papers, so I could be way off with this, but here's what often happens:

Measurement A gives result 13.23 with a standard error of +/- 0.09
Measurement B gives result 13.31 with a standard error of +/- 0.03

These measurements are in good agreement. Measurement A is valid, so is measurement B. If these are the only 2 measurements done, we can combine them to form our current best estimate: 13.30 +/- 0.03 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean#Dealing_with_variance)

It's been said so many times before, but:

Your criticising from a viewpoint that lacks a lot of critical information. It's great that your interested in new ideas, but great ideas almost always require great hard work.

I sincerely promise you, if you manage to create a new theory that explains some of the weird and wonderful the universe throws at us, backed up by doing the proper maths and comparing to real data, you will be hailed as a genius. If it's an important enough problem you'll get the nobel prize.

Challenging the status quo is a big part of being a researcher, but most of us take on *very* small parts because it's more feasible. Attacking the fundamental building blocks is harder, not because there's some conspiracy opposing it, but because it's damn near impossible to find any better ones.

MOND (modified newtonian dynamics) is a great example of this. You don't get much more fundamental that F=ma.
Were the researchers who thought of it fired? No. They were almost certainly promoted. They challenged one of the biggest building blocks of physics and were rewarded for their innovative thought, not crushed by some physics-illuminati.
Still, it seems that they were wrong. F=ma is just so damn good. Nothing else works better. People are still trying to challenging it, maybe they'll succeed, but for now we stick with it because we haven't got anything better.
 
John_C said:
What is this bit based on?
What evidence do you have?
Do you have any understanding of how scientists are hired and fired, or even what being an academic researcher actually entails?
Click to expand...

These are good questions.

This bit is based on common observation with any job or academic task. If you are required to do a task and you openly claim that the task is a waste of time, you will likely get replaced by someone else. If you say that all of your colleagues' work is wrong, you won't last long wherever you are working. Is the academic realm any different?
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
These are good questions.

This bit is based on common observation with any job or academic task. If you are required to do a task and you openly claim that the task is a waste of time, you will likely get replaced by someone else. If you say that all of your colleagues' work is wrong, you won't last long wherever you are working. Is the academic realm any different?
Click to expand...

In many ways it is very different. See my example above about MOND.

If you call bullshit on something, and you've got the evidence to back it up, the person you called bullshit on tends to get fired, not you, although unless they were demonstrably shit at their work or dishonest then they'll probably keep their position anyway. Obviously these are still human beings, so there's all the usual rivalries and hierarchies, but disagreements are generally fostered not extinguished. When two great scientists go head to head over an issue, management isn't looking over their shoulders waiting for one to win so they can fire the other one.
 
You are correct, MOND is an exception. But where is the MOND research centered? Certainly not the United States, where thinking outside the box seems to have lost its value in this field.

In no way am I trying to say that I know why the universe works the way it does. What I do know is that if you look at the current problems facing astronomy and then you look at the history of science, which tends to repeat itself, it seems likely that there is a fundamental flaw in our observations that is causing these problems. Most of the great science discoveries were made by people who thought outside the box enough to find fundamental flaws in their contemporaries' observations. Yet few people today seem to acknowledge the possibility that our observations could be flawed.

The way the system is set up today does not foster the type of outside the box thinking that Newton, Einstein, etc. employed.
 
Let's assume for a moment I am correct. Let's assume that there is another force at work that we do not understand that gives the impression that there is some sort of "dark matter" out there. How are we going to find it? Our current system makes discoveries based on observation. The only way for this discovery to happen is to wait it out until someone says "enough is enough, there is something else going on." Which is exactly what MOND does.

But let's be honest -- MOND has an asterisk by it. Admittedly, I am not in circles with the scientific community (I wouldn't last long there anyway). But based on what I have read, MOND is frowned upon a bit in the community because it does not work. That type of outside the box thinking is shunned because it is risky. And MOND is not particularly risky -- it is based on empirical observation. Disproving the "dark matter" theory would require an additional step that would make MOND seem entirely legit.

We think we know what makes up 3% of the universe. Yet we are so certain of that 3% that we have built walls to protect it. Taking down those walls will take a long, long time.
 
drew_drummer said:
Unfortunately GGI, you seem to be stuck in the "open" mode. The "closed" mode that inspires critical thinking and the completion of ideas, doesn't seem available to you. I think you're broken.

http://vimeo.com/18913413
Click to expand...

Great link!

Are you being sarcastic? Cleese would agree with me. I agree the critical thinking and completion of ideas should be done in closed mode. However, in this case, the idea itself is still not developed. More open mode time is needed to come up with an alternative to "dark matter". Once the idea is proposed, then closed mode is needed to complete it.

This is a great video btw, thanks.
 
Lord have mercy, look at what I found! One week old, don't know how I missed this...This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. Wow!

http://www.universetoday.com/98864/do-we-really-need-dark-matter/

"Using accepted physics of how time behaves based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity — namely, how the passage of time is relative to the position and velocity of the viewer (as well as the intensity of the gravitational field the viewer is within) — Magain’s model allows for an observer located within the Universe to potentially be experiencing a different rate of time than a hypothetical viewer located outside the Universe. Not to be so metaphysical as to presume that there are external observers of our Universe but merely to say that an external point would be a fixed one against which one could benchmark a varying passage of time inside the Universe, Magain calls this universal relativity."

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/98864/do-we-really-need-dark-matter/#ixzz2F49ZkjuN
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
Our current system makes discoveries based on observation. The only way for this discovery to happen is to wait it out until someone says "enough is enough, there is something else going on."
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that the problem with scientists is that we keep insisting on doing science? You know, looking at the physical world and attempting to deduce underlying patterns....
Science by observation is the only kind of science. The rest is for philosophers and theologians.



About the article you just posted about not needing dark matter... This is perfect evidence that people ARE looking for alternatives. Every physicist knows that dark matter stinks. It's not a conspiracy or some strange blind science-faith, it's a place-holder name until someone comes up with an explanation. There are thousands of the best minds in the world spending many hours of every day trying to work out new theories that explain the observations we see.
There is no lack of open-mindedness here, just a healthy degree of skepticism for new ideas, because 99% of them are bullcrap.
 
I disagree. I see a significant lack of open-mindedness that has poisoned astronomers and cosmologists from the start. "Dark Matter" is an 80 year old term used to describe missing mass and is one of the first things all young astronomers learn. The term "Dark Matter" implies that scientists know what they are looking for. The term also implies that the solution to the "Dark Matter" problem is a new form of matter. From the get-go, scientists have been bred to solve this problem with missing matter.

The tired defense that we keep hearing is that cosmologists are able to piece together the universe with (even I will admit) such incredible accuracy. Therefore, they must be on the right track. Which is actually pretty reasonable. I will agree that if a new type of "Dark Matter" is found then the pieces will really be in place and we will be able to construct a successful final model of the universe. And I will be eating a very large Humble Pie.

However, there is no reason to believe the "Dark Matter" problem is some missing puzzle piece just waiting to be found. The reality is that the galaxy rotation problem is a gaping wound in our model. "Dark Matter" is a construct -- I repeat, a construct -- made to fill in the for the galaxy rotation problem. It has been the #1 problem for many years yet the best piece of evidence for the "Dark Matter" solution can only be found via 3.3 billion year old gravitational lensing.

Why do we so strongly favor searching for what boils down to being a construct?

Why is it so difficult for scientists to consider that things might work differently on Earth than they do in other parts of the universe? If anything, they should be assuming that time and gravity work differently when you look at 3.3 billion year old galaxy clusters. Yet we assume homogeneity. Why?

To solve this mystery with 100% certainty, we would need to somehow get outside our solar system, outside our galaxy, and our supercluster. But we can't do that. So what is the next best step? Can we look at maybe a moon or Mars mission and do tests there? No, unfortunately, that hasn't proven anything for or against "Dark Matter." Are there any other options we have?

Have we sent any other spacecraft out farther than Mars? If so, can we look at them and see if they have any answers for us? What is the man-made object furthest from earth? Do we have any information from these spacecraft from outside the solar system? Is there anything interesting/unusual that these spacecraft have seen?

And you probably already know the answer is yes. The Pioneer spacecrafts, the two most distant man-made objects, both reported as-of-yet unexplained anomalies. The evidence is right there. The only explanation for these anomalies is that time is moving slower for the two Pioneer craft.

This would also explain much of the galaxy spin problem. But what do I know.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
I disagree. I see a significant lack of open-mindedness that has poisoned astronomers and cosmologists from the start. "Dark Matter" is an 80 year old term used to describe missing mass and is one of the first things all young astronomers learn. The term "Dark Matter" implies that scientists know what they are looking for. The term also implies that the solution to the "Dark Matter" problem is a new form of matter. From the get-go, scientists have been bred to solve this problem with missing matter.

The tired defense that we keep hearing is that cosmologists are able to piece together the universe with (even I will admit) such incredible accuracy. Therefore, they must be on the right track. Which is actually pretty reasonable. I will agree that if a new type of "Dark Matter" is found then the pieces will really be in place and we will be able to construct a successful final model of the universe. And I will be eating a very large Humble Pie.

However, there is no reason to believe the "Dark Matter" problem is some missing puzzle piece just waiting to be found. The reality is that the galaxy rotation problem is a gaping wound in our model. "Dark Matter" is a construct -- I repeat, a construct -- made to fill in the for the galaxy rotation problem. It has been the #1 problem for many years yet the best piece of evidence for the "Dark Matter" solution can only be found via 3.3 billion year old gravitational lensing.

Why do we so strongly favor searching for what boils down to being a construct?

Why is it so difficult for scientists to consider that things might work differently on Earth than they do in other parts of the universe? If anything, they should be assuming that time and gravity work differently when you look at 3.3 billion year old galaxy clusters. Yet we assume homogeneity. Why?

To solve this mystery with 100% certainty, we would need to somehow get outside our solar system, outside our galaxy, and our supercluster. But we can't do that. So what is the next best step? Can we look at maybe a moon or Mars mission and do tests there? No, unfortunately, that hasn't proven anything for or against "Dark Matter." Are there any other options we have?

Have we sent any other spacecraft out farther than Mars? If so, can we look at them and see if they have any answers for us? What is the man-made object furthest from earth? Do we have any information from these spacecraft from outside the solar system? Is there anything interesting/unusual that these spacecraft have seen?

And you probably already know the answer is yes. The Pioneer spacecrafts, the two most distant man-made objects, both reported as-of-yet unexplained anomalies. The evidence is right there. The only explanation for these anomalies is that time is moving slower for the two Pioneer craft.

This would also explain much of the galaxy spin problem. But what do I know.
Click to expand...

*Sigh* there's only so much patience one can have with this:

Look, you really need to do some proper physics reading. You quite obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Anything I say to persuade you about any of this is pointless because you won't knuckle down to doing any real work to understand any of it.

I promise you, if you bother to learn some (or even a little bit, tbh) of the maths and theory, you'll have a much clearer perspective. Until then, I'm out.

P.S. please don't compare this to esotericism. I'm not saying that there is hidden knowledge that only the special few can understand and the rest of you should just take our word for it. I'm saying that if you want to challenge someone on a topic it helps to have some understanding of said topic. Go read some textbooks.
 
The good thing is right now the science world is pretty certain that the discovery of "Dark Matter" is right around the corner. There are some detectors being built that should give us a solid answer in the next few years.

Also, please do not misunderstand me. I truly hope I am wrong. I hope "Dark Matter" is found soon and science can take a major step forward. That would be amazing. But you are more likely to find gold at the end of a rainbow.
 
GGI, just for example, first line : if it's called dark matter, it's because calculations miss some "m" so that the equations even out. So that's why it was called dark matter, and is nothing else, put down simpler, than a "+c" missing in those. It's then a processus of "retro engineering" if you're following me, hopefully leading to a discover, and then the build of a "proof". Then, probably we will find out about details, maybe realize it's not actually what we think it was, refining the current paradigm. and on and on. That's all. Failure and mistakes are part of science, and if you expect scientists not to defend their own idea, then I don't know how you want them to do.

Also, I'm pretty sure if you opened (I didn't, to be fair) a book on the subject, and you would find out searchers are not as close minded as you picture them. It's only what you want to see. See, recently, they found out about a whole particle that just didn't "exist" yet because it wasn't proven. What is it to discover the way to prove something you can't touch nor see nor experience in any way with our senses and was missing from the first place, if this is not being open minded ? that's why no one is following you here

You don't solve the dark matter "problem" by going to the moon nor to mars. I don't see what you're talking about there.

Human crafter farthest object ever sent is Voyager 1 IIRC, not pioneer. And I don't think we can get anything new from it anymore, but I wouldn't bet on that, I'm not as geek as I used to be on the subject. Again I don't see what it would do about dark matter, it's just not the purpose of the mission nor the design of the object. I don't even think there is a need to build a machine to remotely go out of earth for such an enterprise. Probably it comes down to lower than atomic level, I'm not too sure. I don't see what going to a different place would make a difference, you would just move yourself and your origin of coordinates somewhere else, that's pretty much all. Unless you have a good reason why, say going next to a black hole maybe ? But how far is the closest one, I bet too far for several lifetimes, maybe too far to be reached with current paradigm of technologies ? I don't know.

Also, difference of "speed of time" is empirically proven, no one denies that since a long time ago. That still doesn't prove anything yet, it just means there is a problem to solver. I don't know why you're trying to make it a proof of a counter-theory which btw is quite difficult to get a grasp on.

I don't know what the fuck is your problem with gravity and time vs distance. There are theories for both parties. Let it go

"What do I know" probably next to nothing, which is even lower than I do, which is BTW not very admirable since I just did (though 3x more intense than normal) physics/maths scholarship, and not even REMOTELY near actual research. But yeah, that probably makes you a genius who thinks ahead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back