Ornlu
Banned
Thanks for posting that! I hadn't read that in ages.
This was originally a story from back in 2013. It’s making the rounds again because they reuse space stories and no one notices.
It’s all Bullshit faith based nonsense.
I did some reading on this and it's an interesting idea with a great deal of implications. My biggest issue is that it would mean that dark matter is outside of space time but still impacts it which makes no sense.
It's nice to want that but the math doesn't back it at all. More likely is the black hole approach to universe creation. Even that is pretty iffy. The something from nothing is the more likely option...
Never heard of black hole? Singularity?
That's why it's called "dark" ... The comparison isn't exaggerated either. You speak to it being only on paper as if there is no information on it at all and that's simply untrue when it simply isn't.They measured something and dubbed it dark matter. All we know its “something”.
Also your comparison is ridiculous.
Fuck, why do some people always have to exaggerate when they want to make a point.
If dark matter was around before the big bang (when time and space were created) it would be out side of space time by definition. That's all I was saying.Both wrong. 1) the paper this is about was just published in PRL, the pre-print came out in May. It's not from 2013.
2) "dark matter is outside space time" is a meaningless statement and has nothing to do with this paper. The title is extremely misleading. What is referring to is DM that formed prior to the inflationary epoch.
Black holes don't explain DM
The term "big bang" is not unambiguous. A period, almost immediately after the universe's "creation", saw the universe expand by about a billion billion billion times, in hundred thousand of a billion of a billion of a billionth of a second. That's inflation, it's a part of most models of the big bang. Now, this paper which the article is about, talks about the big bang as the period after inflation. It doesn't say that DM is older than the universe, nothing of the sort. We don't have a model for anything before about 10^-37 seconds after the universe was made.If dark matter was around before the big bang (when time and space were created) it would be out side of space time by definition. That's all I was saying.
I also don't like inflation. It seems like a forced answer. Smarter people than me say it works though.
I was also going to comment on DM and black holes. Wasn't it shown that all the black holes would only amount to a few % of DM or something. I'm trying to remember the details.
Except that's not correct.Anybody with any critical thinking capability will instantly realize that something has to originate out of something. The big bang is nothing but a small explosion that created our bubble in space and nothing more.
Time doesn't exist and space was always there. So it can't be created.
And yet we can only observe/measure certain effects and draw educated guesses. Thats far from “we know exactly what it is”.That's why it's called "dark" ... The comparison isn't exaggerated either. You speak to it being only on paper as if there is no information on it at all and that's simply untrue when it simply isn't.
It's good to have different theories, we won't "know" which one is right until we have data that definitively rules out all but one of them. The reason we postulate dark matter to exist, is that when looking at how spiral galaxies rotate, the stars at the edge of the galaxies appear to be rotating much faster than they should, in the sense that there doesn't seem like there's enough mass in the galaxy to hold those stars there. Turns out, that if you add some matter we can't see that it's very easy to account for the rotation velocities.And yet we can only observe/measure certain effects and draw educated guesses. Thats far from “we know exactly what it is”.
Hell, the other day I saw one of these sciences documentaries where they discussed dark matter, and it seems like some of them have completely different theories claiming it doesnt even exist by finding alternative explanations.
Except that's not correct.
Kicking the can down the road, as usual.
"It existed before the Big Bang"
Wait, I thought Big Bang was hashtag cancelled by 'scientific consensus' because it suggests a causal universe?
"Yeah well because dark matter existed before time existed, technically it can fix these other holes we can't explain. Infinite, uncaused universe. Pluto is a planet!".
I love science and academia! I read and learn about it all the time, and I am constantly amazed by what we have discovered. Presently, I am learning about soil microbiology, identifying species of fungi and bacteria and nematodes.Your continuous hostility towards science and academia is really starting to grate.
Dark Matter isn't something that's been arbitrarily conjured up by the scientific community, but the result of the empirical observation that the Universe is expanding at an increasing speed. Astronomers observed that light from distant objects in the universe is redshifted, which tells us that the objects are all receding away from us thus refuting the big crunch theory. This is true in whatever direction you look at and commonly known as Hubble's Law.
In order to explain this increased expansion there needs to be more matter than currently observable, otherwise we cannot explain this redshift. You make it seem as if scientists simply came up with that notion at random, when in fact it is the result of logical deduction from observable phenomena.
Edwin Hubble was awarded a Nobel prize for his observation, because before that we simply didn't know if the Universe would keep expanding or retract in on itself. So if you've got a better explanation, please share your brilliant insights with us instead of deriding the scientific community for stating observable facts. Astronomers and astrophysicists are very well aware that their knowledge about the Universe is far from being complete, hence why they keep looking. There is no scientific consensus on Dark Matter, because nobody even knows what it is. It's one of the biggest remaining mysteries in astrophysics and until better observations are made, it's our best guess based on the things we actually can observe, nothing more nothing less.
In any way, i'll take their incomplete scientific explanation of the Universe over your seemingly complete but dogmatic and simplistic religious mysticism.
I love science and academia!
Academia is just another flavor of gov't bureaucracy at this point.
Let the current version of academia burn to the ground.
Academia needs to burn.
I read and learn about it all the time, and I am constantly amazed by what we have discovered. Presently, I am learning about soil microbiology, identifying species of fungi and bacteria and nematodes.
I can tell that something grates on you, but I think you answered that yourself in the last sentence.
Decent posts beget decent replies. You're just fishing for an argument, so I'm going to respond in kind. Why would I come up with a better explanation for our redshifting universe? As far as I know, the expansion is what causes redshifting to occur, just as you pointed out. That doesn't prove dark matter (merely infers that something must be responsible) nor does it prove that dark matter is older than the big bang, which is the subject of this thread.I see, so you're not going to dignify us with a decent reply. I'd like you to come up with a better explanation for our redshifting Universe, but hey scientists are all just frauds "hiding behind scientific consensus" while "kicking the can down the road" amirite?
I don't see what my simplistic and mystical beliefs have to do with it either, but hey, I'm just following your lead down this thread derail. Lead the way!Uh huh, sure:
What intense love!
I don't see what your botanical hobbies have to do with the discussion at hand.
I can tell you're tired of it! It's why you pounce on me for three sentences. Take a step back. If this was any other topic, you'd accuse the poster of "projection" and "mind reading". How simplistic and dogmatic of you. Go ahead and quote where I pushed my fairy tales if it bothers you so much.Why, because I'm tired of seeing people make grand statements about academia and science while pushing their own little fairy tales?
Decent posts beget decent replies. [...] I can tell you're tired of it! It's why you pounce on me for three sentences. Take a step back. If this was any other topic, you'd accuse the poster of "projection" and "mind reading". How simplistic and dogmatic of you. Go ahead and quote where I pushed my fairy tales if it bothers you so much.
I'm not going to have a pointless argument with you if this the best you can do.
Pause.I gave you a decent reply, even explained to you why astrophysicists assume Dark Matter and that it is not just a mere fantasy notion. As usual, you keep replying and deflecting with personal drama because you have no arguments to back up your disparaging remarks about the scientific community.
Pause.
Where did I push my fairy tales? Quote me
This framing sounds religious in nature. "The Bible isn't false, we just misinterpreted its message".
Okay, fair enough, but it would help if the scientific community was more willing to apply skepticism to its own conclusions in the meanwhile, then, in order to demonstrate this attitude. Instead, those who doubt scientific consensus are met with aggressive browbeating and arrogance.
Ehhh, depends. The scientific community frequently flees behind 'scientific consensus' prematurely. Obviously, any challenges to the assertions would need to be backed up by solid evidence. I'm not arguing against that.
My quote was in response to tesseract responding to Super Mario, if you need more context.
Grow thicker skin, Priest of Academia, and go shake up a beaker for me to make penance for my offense against the "scientific community"
Oh no! What will the scientific community do without you standing up for them on a videogame forum? How will they retain their honor unless you extrapolate lighthearted criticism into full-blown arguments? Will they grant you praise in peer-reviewed journals and laud your crusade against those pesky mystical simpletons?
Don't dodge away from your accusations and then try to smear me with "deflection and personal drama". You make a claim, you back it up. Otherwise, I have no reason to take you seriously. It's especially obvious when you'll throw out a baseless accusation intended to tear down the person and not their argument, and then when you are called out for it, you distract from by making more accusations. Poor form. I would expect better from academia. I also never said dark matter itself was a fantasy notion. I was pointing out the absurdity of how it is being used to "kick the can down the road" in terms of the cause of the universe. As far as I know, dark matter is a real phenomenon. That doesn't mean I should accept every characteristic and magical power that scientists confer to it.
You started and ended your "decent reply" with an insult, based on an "insult" that was in no way directed at you. It wasn't even meant as an insult, actually, but criticism. If you are unable to tell the difference between the two, it is a sign of someone gripped by dogmatic belief.
[...]
Shelve your ego. If this is your revenge story for when I told you to stop letting non-GAF "personal drama" affect how you treated people, it's a disappointment, and you're proving me right with every word you hammer out.
Sorry for whatever is going on in your life. It's clear that I'm just a punching bag for someone who cannot own up to his vitriol.Isn't this what you said?
Yeah, I think my argument was spot on.
Judging by your hysteric reply, the only one who needs to "grow a thicker skin" seems to be yourself...
What a fascinating insight into your head canon. Tell me more.
My god man, talking about overreacting. Tone down the drama, nobody is taking "revenge against you" or "attacking your person"!
You're the one creating more drama right now, dredging up yet again more unrelated forum-drama created purely by your own fantasy simply because somebody disagreed with your above quoted assertions.
Sorry for whatever is going on in your life. It's clear that I'm just a punching bag for someone who cannot own up to his vitriol.
You started this conversation by attacking me and putting words in my mouth. That's plainly observable. It's not my problem that you took humorous, generalized criticism/attack against academia as a personal insult and then escalated by responding with personal insults. Everything that follows your initial post is an attempt for you to stroke your own ego instead of reflecting on your initial mistake.Dafuq are you on about?
Can't somebody have a disagreement with you without you resorting to baseless assumptions about other people's lives you know nothing about?
Stop victimizing yourself, it's silly.
I didn't think my comment resorted dogmatism or what have you. I never made a religious argument. I just replied to DragoonKain who said they liked the idea of a universe with no beginning or ending, that it is an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. If I recall correctly he originally compared it to a heartbeat on his original comment.
No sorries needed on your part. I did not intend to imply that was the crux of your argument, merely that you'd brought up what Strange would term "dogmatic and simplistic religious mysticism", so I apologize.I didn't think my comment resorted dogmatism or what have you. I never made a religious argument. I just replied to DragoonKain who said they liked the idea of a universe with no beginning or ending, that it is an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. If I recall correctly he originally compared it to a heartbeat on his original comment.
I said that reminds me of hinduist cosmology (everything dies and is reborn, even the world itself), then I said I don't think the universe works like that because it would defy the laws of causality.
Sorry to nitpick, but I wasn't trying to make any theological argument on the universe.
Oh, ok. I'm sorry if that was kind of out of the blue and nitpicky.No sorries needed on your part. I did not intend to imply that was the crux of your argument, merely that you'd brought up what Strange would term "dogmatic and simplistic religious mysticism", so I apologize.
You started this conversation by attacking me and putting words in my mouth. That's plainly observable. It's not my problem that you took humorous, generalized criticism/attack against academia as a personal insult and then escalated by responding with personal insults. Everything that follows your initial post is an attempt for you to stroke your own ego instead of reflecting on your initial mistake.
I'm not making a victim out of myself. I'm more confused by your behavior, if anything. Normally you're a level-headed poster but you instead made the decision to take offense at something that was never aimed at you nor at "all scientists".
I've corrected your misunderstanding, yet you've only doubled down. This leads me to believe that it really is about your ego. The two posts you quoted were arguing against dogmatic faith in scientific conclusions, which is why I said "this framing [referring to Tesseract] sounds religious in nature".
You can accept my plain explanation. You can reflect on where you initially miscalculated and attacked someone for things they never said. Or you can continue doubling down with decades-old internet ego-preening that has become so commonplace I'm shocked you resort to it. Again, it leads me to believe that you are besides yourself and aren't thinking rationally.
It's not about a discussion. It's not about a disagreement. It's not about a decent reply. It's about you wanting to take someone down a peg to make yourself feel better, and I just happen to be in your crosshairs. Take your best shot. You've been shooting blanks up to this point.
I think because of what we've come to know and understand in the macro world and on earth, we think everything needs an origin point, but I don't think it necessarily does. Maybe the universe had no origin point. It maybe went on and on forever. Out there in the universe, especially in the quantum world, things work in ways we can't comprehend, like a particle being in 2 places at the same time.
It's the exact opposite. Our models couldn't explain a wide variety of astronomical and cosmological phenomena, and dark matter is simply a proposed solution to that problem.Dark Matter is a hilarious concept. it's basically science saying "don't worry about it, there is something there, our models make total sense, trust us".
It's the exact opposite. Our models couldn't explain a wide variety of astronomical and cosmological phenomena, and dark matter is simply a proposed solution to that problem.
Oh here we go again, it's just impossible to disagree with you without you flipping your lid. I wasn't attacking you, but your merely delivering a counterpoint to your comment.
Please tell, where are those supposed "personal insults" of mine? In fact, my disagreement was pretty benign and well below the usual level of antagonism that is usually employed by yourself against other members on this forum.
Your continuous hostility towards science and academia is really starting to grate.
Dark Matter isn't something that's been arbitrarily conjured up by the scientific community
You make it seem as if scientists simply came up with that notion at random
So if you've got a better explanation, please share your brilliant insights with us instead of deriding the scientific community for stating observable facts.
In any way, i'll take their incomplete scientific explanation of the Universe over your seemingly complete but dogmatic and simplistic religious mysticism.
First of all, thanks for admitting that you took it personally. I wasn't referring to you, yet you feel entitled to attack me personally and my beliefs because -- irony upon irony -- it hurt your academia feefees. Or to use your own words: Your continuous hostility towards science and academia is really starting to grate.Oh so that's your beef, it is not that my comment was factually incorrect, but it hurt your religious feefees. You like to dish it out against science and academia, but can't take it yourself.
Your fragile ego ain't gonna heal any faster when you make excuses for jumping to incorrect conclusions, lashing out dramatically when you took personal offense, and doubling down when called out on it.If anything, my criticism of religious faith is not any less valid than your grand statements about academia and science.
You're the first to infer such a thing. I'm really happy with my time on GAF. I don't feel like people are leading a vendetta against me. Where are you getting this from?First of all, you are victimizing yourself by constantly dredging up drama and insinuating that people are leading some kind of vendetta against you simply because they dared disagree with you on something.
Like I said earlier, you're clearly just using me as a punching bag. I mean, feel free to call it "fantasies" ten more times if that's the catharsis you need. I've done nothing to warrant the repeated smears against my beliefs, and I've not risen to the occasion of insulting you. Sorry that you felt offended by something I said to critique and joke about science and academia.The way you keep construing these silly little fantasies around yourself whenever and argument doesn't go your way is silly and beneath your usual demeanor.
If only you were equally as critical towards your own faith and beliefs as you are towards science and academia...
I've frikkin' quoted the things you've said. What more do you want?
These little fantasies and hollow assumptions are entertaining, keep it up. I'm really enjoying these baseless assumptions about yours in order to deflect from the argument at hand. So far you've made nothing but unsubstantiated claims about my life, my state of mind and my motivations of which your evidently know nothing about as if you were some kind of psychoanalyst clairvoyant. None of that sh*t holds any water, because my only intention was to formulate a counterpoint to your statement because it was clearly founded on a misunderstanding of why scientists assume the existence of Dark Matter, nothing more nothing less.
But hey, I've gotten used to you turning every little disagreement into a pseudo-Freudian session.
Anybody with any critical thinking capability will instantly realize that something has to originate out of something. The big bang is nothing but a small explosion that created our bubble in space and nothing more.
Time doesn't exist and space was always there. So it can't be created.
Tell me how this deserves a "decent reply". Not only do you smear with a false accusation (continued hostility toward science and academia), but then you immediately make it emotional.
I'll save myself the time of clipping all the other personal attacks and deflections from your follow-ups.
First of all, thanks for admitting that you took it personally. I wasn't referring to you, yet you feel entitled to attack me personally and my beliefs because -- irony upon irony -- it hurt your academia feefees. Or to use your own words: Your continuous hostility towards science and academia is really starting to grate.
I'm not going to tip-toe around your fragile feelings. If you want to disagree, go for it. But interpreting what I say as "continued hostility towards science and academia" and then reacting as if I'd made a personal insult against you is beyond fragility. You're delusional.
Your fragile ego ain't gonna heal any faster when you make excuses for jumping to incorrect conclusions, lashing out dramatically when you took personal offense, and doubling down when called out on it.
You're the first to infer such a thing. I'm really happy with my time on GAF. I don't feel like people are leading a vendetta against me. Where are you getting this from?
You have this bizarre version of me living in your head that is causing you to lash out.
Like I said earlier, you're clearly just using me as a punching bag. I mean, feel free to call it "fantasies" ten more times if that's the catharsis you need. I've done nothing to warrant the repeated smears against my beliefs, and I've not risen to the occasion of insulting you. Sorry that you felt offended by something I said to critique and joke about science and academia.
Why are they talking about a theory (Big Bang) as if it’s fact?
I'd argue that inquiry into space doesn't prevent the other sciences from flourishing. Sometimes new discoveries in one field can help further another. I don't believe science is an island.I'm a smart scientist, what should I use my smarts for?
- Develop medicine
- Help improve food production and quality
- Create high quality biodegradable materials
- Build engines, machines and tools that work just as good as before, but use up less energy
- Clean up pollution, or generate ways for things to create less pollution
Nah..... I'll look at the stars and try to determine things like Big Bang, blackholes, and what it's like to live on a "similar to Earth planet" 83,653 light years away
Why are they talking about a theory (Big Bang) as if it’s fact?
Do you base all your life decisions on what gives the most net benefit for humanity? Or does that responsibility only fall on smart people?I'm a smart scientist, what should I use my smarts for?
- Develop medicine
- Help improve food production and quality
- Create high quality biodegradable materials
- Build engines, machines and tools that work just as good as before, but use up less energy
- Clean up pollution, or generate ways for things to create less pollution
Nah..... I'll look at the stars and try to determine things like Big Bang, blackholes, and what it's like to live on a "similar to Earth planet" 83,653 light years away
What if dark matter is, no shit, our earliest detection of the spiritual realm?
I'm just sayin'
Who's they? You mean scientists? It's not a fact, it's just the most widely accepted theory that is backed up with data and evidence.
Scientists tend to run with things until it can be disproven, so they're running with it until/if then.