19 Feb 13
6 edits
dark matter might not even exist for there are alternative explanations for the observed gravitational effects albeit just as speculative as the dark matter theory.
Theorizing about what exists that you cannot see is always a bit risky.
They could be trying to find something that isn't there.
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by humyThey also theorized black holes didn't exist even though we still couldn't see them. It is based on observation - on it's influence on the other celestial objects near them. We also still can't see atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and gluons, neutrinos, etc but we know they're there.
dark matter might not even exist for there are alternative explanations for the observed gravitational effects albeit just as speculative as the dark matter theory.
Theorizing about what exists that you cannot see is always a bit risky.
They could be trying to find something that isn't there.
19 Feb 13
5 edits
Originally posted by woodypusherbut those things are not the same because we detect atoms, black holes etc via several different kinds of indirect observations of several different kinds of predicted effects of the existence of these things that are such that these observations would be hard to explain if those things did not exist ('hard' because we have no plausible alternative theories) while, with dark matter, all we have is observed gravitational effects which could be explained (by certain proposed alternative theories) if there was no dark matter.
They also theorized black holes didn't exist even though we still couldn't see them. It is based on observation - on it's influence on the other celestial objects near them. We also still can't see atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and gluons, neutrinos, etc but we know they're there.
I would not say there is no dark matter; I would rather say it is a simple case of it being 'too early to tell'.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by humyI haven't heard of any alternate theories. 'Too early to tell'? It was first proposed in 1932.
but those things are not the same because we detect atoms, black holes etc via several different kinds of indirect observations of several different kinds of predicted effects of the existence of these things that are such that these observations would be hard to explain if those things did not exist ('hard' because we have no plausible alternativ ...[text shortened]... e is no dark matter; I would rather say it is a simple case of it being 'too early to tell'.
20 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by woodypusher
I haven't heard of any alternate theories. 'Too early to tell'? It was first proposed in 1932.
I haven't heard of any alternate theories.
I can remedy that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theories
there is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) made in 1983
and the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT) made in 2007
and there is dark fluid theory; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid
-dark matter may or may not exist.
As far as I am aware, we have no credible alternative theories for the observations that have lead to the theory of atoms etc.
20 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by humyThere will always be alternate theories before anything is proven. The universe was thought to exist in a steady state and benn arounf forever. Now we think it's there was a big bang because we know it is expanding. Up until the pont where Hubble proved this, it was 'too early to tell'.
I haven't heard of any alternate theories.
I can remedy that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theories
there is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) made in 1983
and the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT) made in 2007
and there is dark fluid theory; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid
-dark matt ...[text shortened]... o credible alternative theories for the observations that have lead to the theory of atoms etc.
Dark matter is the one accepted by most in the scientific community. That's why it's the one most laymen like myself have heard of the most. I haven't heard of any alternate theories that may be on the brink of being proven, like dark matter is.
Again, EVERYTHING, until proven conclusively, will be 'too early to tell'. That was my point.
20 Feb 13
7 edits
Originally posted by woodypusherI think all laypeople should consider this;
There will always be alternate theories before anything is proven. The universe was thought to exist in a steady state and benn arounf forever. Now we think it's there was a big bang because we know it is expanding. Up until the pont where Hubble proved this, it was 'too early to tell'.
Dark matter is the one accepted by most in the scientific commun , EVERYTHING, until proven conclusively, will be 'too early to tell'. That was my point.
just because a yet-to-be-proven theory is the one accepted by most in the scientific community does not mean that it will be the most probable theory to pans out when we finally get the evidence and proof of whatever the truth is.
Wasn't there a time when most people, including scientists, thought the Earth was flat? -that one is no longer 'too early to tell' because we now know it to be false.
I haven't heard of any alternate theories that may be on the brink of being proven, like dark matter is.
how do you know that dark matter is “on the brink of being proven”? surely that assumes that dark matter exists before it is proven!
I haven't ever heard of dark matter theory being on the brink of being proven -have you?
And, the general statement of "X theory is on the brink of being proven" would be necessarily unscientific because science is not supposed to assume that a theory will be proven before it is because that implies we should be assuming it is correct before it is proven and that's just not how science is supposed to work.
20 Feb 13
1 edit
<Wasn't there a time when most people, including scientists, thought the Earth was flat? -that one is no longer 'too early to tell' because we now know it to be false.>
Isn't that what I've been saying? Until dark matter - or anything else - is proven it's always too ealy to tell. I've said that three times already. Reread my posts. This time absorb it.
20 Feb 13
4 edits
if you had read the link, you'd see that the headline is:
Has Dark Matter Finally Been Found? Big News Coming Soon
Does that headline, by your logic, presume dark matter exists also?
<how do you know that dark matter is “on the brink of being proven”? surely that assumes that dark matter exists before it is proven>
'...assumes dark matter exists...' does too. This is getting silly.
I mean, seriously. Can we really prove anything exists?
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by woodypusherdid I say this was not what you had said?
<Wasn't there a time when most people, including scientists, thought the Earth was flat? -that one is no longer 'too early to tell' because we now know it to be false.>
Isn't that what I've been saying? Until dark matter - or anything else - is proven it's always too ealy to tell. I've said that three times already. Reread my posts. This time absorb it.