Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

cause science

Reply
- Sat, 09 May 2015 05:30:50 EST PbKyoTEf No.55282
File: 1431163850929.jpg -(94545B / 92.33KB, 900x473) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. cause science
Maybe I'm just too uneducated of a pleb in the realm of physics to see why this isn't the case, but can someone explain to me why, if we need to adjust our models with something that is 97% at least partially empirically unsubstantiated (dark matter-energy) then why don't we question first if there is some flaw in our model or bias in our thinking?
Thought experiment to exemplify: for the most part, we as biological beings as well as our most advanced instrumentation can detect faster than light particles in only the most abstruse ways; our perception, as is perhaps natural given our evolutionary heritage, is tuned to light. Might the supposition that no (or only special) particles go FTL be an example of circular thinking? Could not the existence of small but significant portions of the universe moving faster than light at any given time, such as ships from interstellar civilizations, or perhaps natural ftl phenomena which is invisible to our photon based instrumentation, account for the observed matter-energy discrepancy (given that an ftl object would disporportionately displace and deflect photons compared to any object moving in normal space, and that, if such ftl worked on means of creating geometric distortions in spacetime such as the Alcubierre drive, produce a net distortion on the observed mass of the universe by the fact of their mass negating local spacetime frames. )
This idea is cobbled together from wikipedia articles, some post-sec hard sciences, watching too much star trek and being turnt the fuck up. If someone more versed in physics can explain to me why there is a very good reason this cannot be the case, I'd very much like to hear it.
>>
A domestic goose - Sat, 09 May 2015 08:10:06 EST 3I5fR38C No.55283 Reply
1431173406619.gif -(794270B / 775.65KB, 255x410) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55282
Well science, physics especially, is super flexible. If we discover it doesn't explain something, we can abandon our current model entirely for a new, more correct one which explains everything our old theory did and the unexplained phenomena in question.
One interesting tip a physics prof gave me is that if your theory can't be proven wrong, your theory isn't scientific. Your theory is interesting but since you can't point to measurements that' would be different compared to standard model, your theory doesn't actually mean anything.
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Sat, 09 May 2015 12:17:44 EST y3Nf5AlK No.55284 Reply
>>55282
I personally think that the dark-matter/energy is just the universal source of consciousness that our "souls" return to when we die. That's why it holds the galaxies together, because it's the universal source of life, and it wants to perpetuate it. It's probably undetectable, because we still have no real clue about how consciousness works.
That's just like, my opinion though man.
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Sat, 09 May 2015 12:20:06 EST y3Nf5AlK No.55285 Reply
>>55284
And we'll probably be never to detect it because it's likely held outside of space-time, like some kind of "safeguard". That's why we can't detect the mass, because it doesn't exist within our universe.
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Sat, 09 May 2015 12:21:08 EST y3Nf5AlK No.55286 Reply
>>55285
But the "imprint" of it does.
If you've read "The Last Question", you'll know what I mean.
>>
Charles Bolton - Sat, 09 May 2015 12:37:19 EST OXINl/7g No.55287 Reply
1431189439399.jpg -(70653B / 69.00KB, 800x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55282
I like the idea that because we rely on photons to observe stuff, we can't see things that don't interact with them, but I think that's basically the definition of dark matter anyway. I find dark energy a little more problematic because it seems like we invented something to fit our model rather than adjusting the model; however, either solution looks equally likely to me, and right now we're just using the one that doesn't destroy our entire understanding of physics. Think of it as a "working model."

>>55285
The problem with "souls" being "unable to be detected" because they're "outside our universe" is that we *can* detect the effects of these things that which, to us right now, are undetectable. We can't see dark matter, but we can see dark matter's effects on gravitation in the motion of galaxies. We can't see dark energy, but we can see dark energy's effect on the expansion of the universe.
>>
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sat, 09 May 2015 20:08:58 EST PbKyoTEf No.55290 Reply
>>55283
Thanks (and to all the other respondents) I realize that the theory isn't a scientific one since I haven't developed any sort of predictions or produced a falsifiable test methodology, but that's mostly because I assumed the idea was so obvious that there must be something blatantly wrong with it that I was missing. Your post encourages me to take the time to develop these thoughts more thoroughly.
>>55287
I see (and am inclined to your agree with finding DM less objectionable than DE) I guess I was so put off by the whole 'dark' family of theories seeming to try to fit data to a model than vice versa that I never seriously investigated them. Do dark matter involving models or theorizing physicists ever speculate on the potential effect exotic particles (such as abundant faster-than-light mass, or any number of other kooky things [1,289 dimensions this time guise!]) might affect their theories about their particular special sauce (DM/DE?)
And while I'm not oppossed to thinking there is a physicalistic relationship between the MEST universe and souls/information/spirits, I'd like to keep the discussion ITT on ways beyond the current standard model of physics, but which will be able to be rigorously accepted at some point in the near future
>>
Roger Penrose - Sat, 09 May 2015 23:03:45 EST YHjXylC8 No.55291 Reply
1431227025508.jpg -(27591B / 26.94KB, 838x316) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55290
What what do you think is affected by a soul? The way you think? See the world?
Why can we predict how both will be altered that by altering the brain?
>>
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sun, 10 May 2015 05:42:45 EST PbKyoTEf No.55297 Reply
>>55291
I was actually responding to someone's post earlier in the thread without calling them out by quoting them, saying I specifically didn't want this kind of discussion ITT, however, since you're baiting me...
your own picture is basically the answer to the question. What humans have traditionally referred to as soul/spirits we nowadays refer to by constructs such as information theory. Your soul is the informational content of your awareness, that, while perhaps instanteated by a meatware brain, is nonetheless independent of it, in the same way that the idea of a triangle persists even if there are no triangles in the universe. Btw, we can't predict everything about the brain. Epiphenominalism is just another kind of example of the circular thinking, reductio ad absurdium biases I see as plaguing the hard sciences. Besides, having a full physicalistic description of the interaction between physical components of the brain and the informational content of our consciousness doesn't mean that our consciousness isn't real, it just means that empiricism is true, which I already take for granted. But please, I'll love to see someone turn what I just said into 'duurrr wooo-woooooo! /tinfoil!/fgt!!'
>>
Gerard Kuiper - Sun, 10 May 2015 10:43:47 EST RVWMYu65 No.55298 Reply
>if we need to adjust our models with something that is 97% at least partially empirically unsubstantiated (dark matter-energy) then why don't we question first if there is some flaw in our model or bias in our thinking?
People did make new models. Not a single one has out performed dark matter. Dark matter was not the default choice, it proved itself to be the strongest model. Dark energy is relativity young but even now there is an entire field of cosmology which deals with explaining as a modification of gravity rather than as a cosmological constant. The cosmological constant however has the fewest free parameters, just one in fact, and yet neatly fits the data we have. Testing the equation of state of dark energy is a massive project currently with things like the Dark Energy Survey, BOSS as part of SDSS and now eBOSS, DESI, Euclid, KIDS, WFIRST (perhaps), SuMIRe, HETDEX, SPT, ACT, PolarBear... Huge projects to test models of dark energy.

"Empirically unsubstantiated" isn't the case for dark matter or dark energy. They are models, they are tested.
>>
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sun, 10 May 2015 11:35:09 EST PbKyoTEf No.55299 Reply
>>55298
I'm aware that there are alternative models, but that doesn't negate that physics has been stuck with futzing with these little bits of the standard model for around 40 years, chasing data points rather than questioning assumptions, and your assessment of the underperformance of alternatives I think is subjective...to riff off BBT, some people like their gravity loopy while others like their universe stringy, and the general problem I'm trying to point out is the arrogance that proponents of the standard model put out in favor of it, when really, it's simply a mathematical construct that the fewest people will quibble over based on the observations we can get from instruments we've currently invented. I feel that the level of evidence brought to bear for them in comparison to the other problems they introduce, in terms of their general inelegance, their seeming violation of the parsimony principle, never mind the fact that, even though dark matter should be all around us, we've never directly detected it...yes, we have models that include it, and we come up with ways, within our current thinking, to test those models, but just because they are the best fit within our current model doesn't mean they might not seem ridiculous if there was simply some bias in our observations in terms of what we are attempting to account for in the model, which was the basic point of the thread. I'm not saying dark matter-energy is unsubstantiated in the sense that say, reptilian overlords are, I'm saying its unsubstantiated in the way phlogiston was. It fits our model for now, but it may be because we simply are blind to some obvious truths.
>>
Gerard Kuiper - Sun, 10 May 2015 19:20:51 EST RVWMYu65 No.55300 Reply
>>55299
I don't think you know enough about cosmology to be calling anyone arrogant, dark energy has only been accepted for just under 2 decades. The whole point of alternative models is that they question assumptions by making different ones.

Rejecting models is not subjective, either a model is consistent with the data or it does not, it is pure statistics.

>their general inelegance

Now that is really subjective. We can statistically quantify the number of free parameters and weight statistical tests accordingly, this is standard practice. You cannot pick a model based on the one you think is elegant.

>violation of the parsimony principle

Occam's razor says of two models with equal explanatory power the one with fewer free parameters is preferred, not correct. In other words simplicity should only be traded for increased explanatory power. Dark matter and dark energy fit this criteria because they came about from observation.

>even though dark matter should be all around us, we've never directly detected it

It took 25 years before neutrinos were detected after they were postulated. WIMPs haven't been the favorite explanation for dark matter for that long. Neutrinos from other stars are also all around us but lack of sensitivity means they were only detected once.

>just because they are the best fit within our current model doesn't mean they might not seem ridiculous if there was simply some bias in our observations in terms of what we are attempting to account for in the model

This will always be true in all empirical science. No set of observations can ever prove a model and it only takes one result to rule out a model. It's true of evolution, relativity, everything. This is the nature of empiricism, it isn't a criticism. The standard model will change, if that bothers you then try religion.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Sun, 10 May 2015 20:09:30 EST PbKyoTEf No.55301 Reply
>>55300
Yeah, this is exactly why I stopped trying to have sensible discussions with people who are this committed to an absolute scientism (note I didn't say science!) world view. Frankly, you have no idea what I know about cosmology, or anything else for that matter. This is exactly the kind of blind arrogance I was talking about. For example, my criticism was primarily leveled at Dark Matter, which has been postulated since the 1930s. I recognize that alternative models make different assumptions, what I'm saying is that many of our for granted assumptions are so poor, we may be blind to legitimate alternatives, because of any number of biases, in our observations, in our mathematics, in our basic assumptions about what the model needs to entail.
Statistics is a science particularly suited to being able to massage data into whatever you want to see in it. The rejection of models can occur when an observation is fundamentally inconsistent with a model we are more committed to, but in many cases an earlier rejection has been in the service of maintaining a model that itself was later rejected based on new data. I am merely making the observation that any number of elements of Lambda CDM could be where our bias is hiding, such as our suppositions about what kind of mass tachyons would have to have, whether modified or classical Newtonian dynamics are closer to being accurate, etc, which was the pertinent matter of the OP thought experiment. Any off an ensemble of the parameters we think aren't free could actually be so, if there is just the slightest bias or misunderstanding of fundamental principles, and our science I'm sure could go on for centuries, dealing with the limited amount of the universe we interact with, before the error would become apparent and require a fundamental reconfiguration. My point is precisely that, that much of what we are committed to in our model are actually artifacts of circular thinking originating in our cherished assumptions in the model, which could be something as basic as a modification a true quantum explanation of gravity would have on general relativity.
If the supra-galactic dynamics of gravity can be explained by differences in the law of inverse squares when dealing with extremely low degree so acceleration for extremely massive structures (MOND) then why doesn't Occam's Razor prefer this, rather than an invisible woo-woo who accounts for 97% of everything that is, when that woo-woo itself we can answer no real fundamental questions about (of what particle is it composed, if any? If its massless, then why does it interact with matter so much, when we seem to think tachyons cannot? How do we know observations of distant galaxy motion from which the whole idea started haven't been influenced by things like say, changes in the speed of light across cosmological timescales? Too many what ifs that undercut the entire operation that to my mind, make this kind of vitriolic, unquestioning defense of it an evidence of stubbornness, and arrogance, again, my whole point)it seems to me the answer is we have been saying dark matter-energy for so long that whole generations of physicists have become culturally committed to it, even if common sense might suggest there are more fruitful avenues of exploration (or at least that this present one doesn't yet merit such overwhelming commitment.) And, we do pick models based on elegance. That is precisely what Occam's Razor is, even, granting, that it is a heuristic, not a principle or a law.

As for the short time we've been looking for WIMPs, ok, but do I really need to come up with a litany of supposed physical phenomena that scientists spent decades and whole lives chasing after, only for it later to be found that the whole idea was a ghost in some data or some artifact of a mathematical construct? Just because WIMPs are the new favored explanation, and we're building ridiculously expensive pieces of technology to hunt for them, doesn't mean that they will be found or, even if they are, that they will fully satisfy the missing mass problem, or that even if they seem to, that this itself might not be due to some other thing we're leaving out (even one additional undiscovered fundamental particle, for example.)

As for 'that will always be true of empirical science' yeah, I agree that's exactly what I'm championing. Empiricism is amazing, is the only way of truly moving forward with knowledge. My suggestion is that modern physicists have forgone the basic premises of empiricism (data first model second) and the scientific method (if an observation violates a model, revise the entire model back to the nearest point we can confirm, not chase adjacent phantoms) in order to hunt phantoms of their own mathematics which, like any kind of beings affected by observational bias, means they often do indeed find some evidence, or what appears to be, but that doesn't mean that the model isn't incomplete, or deserves the kind of unthinking (or unquestioningly parroting) devotion many (you, others like you) are giving to it. But, just tell me that the only reason I think that is because I'm just not LCDM cool enough for school, won't get it because I just can't see the brilliance of nearly everything we say exists being an invisible sumthin that well, we just don't really know shit about apart from how maybe it probably would interact with out mathematical models and we can spend a lot of fucking time and money trying to find proof for it. Would pretty much confirm my basic suspicion that most people in hard sciences are hopelessly, dangerously close minded.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Sun, 10 May 2015 20:23:01 EST PbKyoTEf No.55302 Reply
>>55301
To put a finer point on it, since I know people won't focus on my take away message but try to quibble with my specific statements, we have given up the fundamental axiom upon which all Western science is based, 'Socrates' statement that the root of all knowledge is accepting that you know basically next to nothing. Physics current general stance in the mainstream is entirely the opposite, that basically we know everything except for some little tiny bit that don't worry lads, we're taking care of up in our tremendous noggins with concepts that are just toooo advanced for you (and then proceed to futz with something that at least currently is a 97% fantasy drawn out of what then according to their own model is an observation of only 3% of reality)
>>
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Mon, 11 May 2015 05:08:21 EST RVWMYu65 No.55305 Reply
>>55301
I have a very good idea of what you know about cosmology. Dark matter as old as Zwicky but CDM specifically is not, the standard model simply isn't 40 years old. I've had a thousand conversations with people who "knew" the standard model was bullshit for X, Y and Z. The fact you suggest there are really people in cosmology who defend this without question tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the field.

You claim many assumptions are poor, which assumptions and why? An assertion like that without basis is pretty arrogant.

>Statistics is a science particularly suited to being able to massage data into whatever you want to see in it.

That's complete and utter bullshit. Statistics removes bias and quantifies evidence. I can tell you've never taken a rigorous statistics course. Many areas of cosmology now practice blind testing where there mix in the data from their observations with simulated data from varying models without knowing which is which. How can you massage data when you don't know what data is real?

> I am merely making the observation that any number of elements of Lambda CDM could be where our bias is hiding

There's a difference between proposing a wacky model acknowledging it is such and calling cosmologists everywhere arrogant and blind.

> My point is precisely that, that much of what we are committed to in our model are actually artifacts of circular thinking originating in our cherished assumptions in the model, which could be something as basic as a modification a true quantum explanation of gravity would have on general relativity.

Here you go again. You are convinced the model is unjustifiable but only because it MIGHT be wrong. That isn't criticism it is the nature of empiricism.

>If the supra-galactic dynamics of gravity can be explained by differences in the law of inverse squares when dealing with extremely low degree so acceleration for extremely massive structures (MOND) then why doesn't Occam's Razor prefer this

Because you don't know what you're talking about when you call dark matter "woo". MOND has essentially infinite free parameters, it is a data fitting model, it is fit to the data and then extrapolated. Unlike dark matter there is no simulation you can run to tell you why the physics we observe occurs, you can only fit it. CDM has fewer free parameters so is preferred. MOND also cannot explain clusters or do cosmology, it fails on large scales and requires it's own dark matter. MOND cannot fit all the data simultaneously, that's why it is largely ignored now.

Dark matter can answer fundamental questions, like does it self interact or what it's mass is by constraining it's properties in observations. It is not massless, no one suggests that.

Occam's Razor is not elegance, it is statistical merit. If your model requires 300 free parameters to fit the CMB power spectrum it will likely give a very good fit, but the standard model which requires less that 10 may not fit it as well but it has less freedom to do so.

You haven't made a single argument about lamdaCDM.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Mon, 11 May 2015 06:22:29 EST PbKyoTEf No.55306 Reply
>>55305
Because the point of the thread was not to argue LCDM? That's what you decided you wanted to argue about. I wanted to see if /sagan/ could provide intelligent articulation of alternatives (ahem, so in what way are you not ITT 'defending it without question'? You're derailing any entertainment of alternative notions!) I'm not saying your/standard model's understanding isn't rigorous, and complex. But you won't even acknowledge my basic point, which is that maybe, just maybe, there's another explanation than the ones you've already accounted for. You back it up with ad hominem, baseless statements about my education, (you can massage data, because regardless of what kind of statistical tools you use to help you in analysis, you designed the experiment, to some degree) make strawman generalized retellings of my purely illustrative points to make it seem like you're dismissing my actual argument, and pepper in facts about modern experimental methodologies that dodge my point entirely just to make it seem like I I am less versed than you, when my argument is based on that kind of data (indeed, I am not making an argument, but an observation, and seeking input.) I am convinced that it might be wrong, and asking for alternatives; if this is not allowed, how is empiricism to continue? Again, I have explicitly stated several times I'm not challenging empiricism, I am in fact claiming that others are neglecting it. I'm aware no one has built a complete cosmology off MOND or TeVes or other alternatives, but again, I think this can be attributed to cultural forces within the sciences and observational biases arising from our instrumentation, as I said in my OP. My argument was never about bringing a mathematical or observational objection to the standard model, but to get a litmus test on attitudes and speculate on alternatives. But, you have confirmed my basic suspicion, you have thoroughly behaved with the sort of attitude many in cosmology have (not all!) especially when trying to come up with 'mainstream' articulations of theory, which I belief stifles free thinking and therefore stalls scientific progress, as you cannot seem to even perceive what I'm actually saying, only argue data... I just wish I could have gotten some different data points on attitudes, although some of the earlier posts were helpful.
>>
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Mon, 11 May 2015 18:13:25 EST RVWMYu65 No.55309 Reply
>>55306
You asked a question alternatives, I answered it. You then called cosmologists arrogant for no reason at all which is why I have taken you to task over this. You started throwing insults so don't act shocked.

>You back it up with ad hominem

No. Calling you uneducated is not an ad hom, it's an observation or at worst an insult (just as you called scientists arrogant). Calling you uneducated as evidence that you are wrong is ad hom, I have not done that. Please don't misrepresent my points.

> you can massage data, because regardless of what kind of statistical tools you use to help you in analysis, you designed the experiment

That's not massaging the data. Massaging the data is done afterwards. Targeting your study is not massaging because you must do control samples or mocks which quickly show you have biased your study. There is a whole industry of cosmological statistics, people are very careful about what they do.

> But you won't even acknowledge my basic point, which is that maybe, just maybe, there's another explanation than the ones you've already accounted for.

Now you're misrepresenting my position again. I have acknowledged that but it is true of any scientific model and not criticism of any. You misunderstand science if you think anyone is claiming that. I have cut to the heart of your claims about standard cosmology, so don't play that bullshit that I have ignored your points.

Plenty people have built alternative cosmologies, there are hundreds if not more. The issue is as observations get better more and more are ruled out. Concordance cosmology is one of the few left and the rest are little different. New ideas are welcome but sitting down and claiming observations might be biased is not useful. How are they biased? Why did this not show up in simulation or in control testing? That is useful.
>>
Roger Penrose - Mon, 11 May 2015 22:26:10 EST OXINl/7g No.55310 Reply
>>55282
A few posts have touched on it, but Dark Energy is (I think) just a term to describe a force that we haven't really wrapped our heads around yet. A few premises:

1) We're pretty familiar with the 4 fundamental forces (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity), but the effects of Dark Energy aren't explained by any of them.

2) It's entirely possible that we don't completely understand something about one/several/all of the 4 forces, but we don't see a "Dark Energy-like" effect when we observe those forces in action.

3) Therefore, in the absence of the observation of effects that don't appear to be caused by one of the 4, the possibility remains that there is a 5th fundamental force, and we don't understand its method of action, especially in any kind of predictive way.

Until we do figure out what it is, "Dark Energy" is a "placeholder model," and it does the job pretty well by at least putting a label on whatever causes the expansion of the universe.
>>
Mike Brown - Tue, 12 May 2015 02:56:31 EST E1ZVDdCl No.55312 Reply
>>55309
>You asked a question alternatives, I answered it.

I asked for alternatives, not a reiteration of the standard model, which I am already familiar with (a point I am sure you will choose to dispute)

>You started throwing insults so don't act shocked.

The only 'insult' I can identify in my posts prior to your provocative claim that I didn't even know enough to assert that mainstream standard model proponents display arrogance, was to assert that, arrogance, which was really the only negative word I used.

>You then called cosmologists arrogant for no reason, blah blah...

I am not calling them arrogant for no reason, but a very specific reason; the way they distribute the expenditure of their time and resources between pursuing the current prevalent theory, and investigating possible alternatives.

>Massaging the data is done afterwards. Targeting your study is not massaging because blah blah irrelevant methodology wanking which I am I assure you painfully familiar with

While I see you may be a logical atomist and thus will object to any metaphorical use of language, my claim of massaging was directed as a claim of potential bias throughout the system of statistical science, owing to observational and heuristic effects, which could (and most certainly frequently does) lead to a massaged interpretation of the raw data, when you evaluate a study as a whole. You are the one who decided to focus specifically on analytical methods. I didn't say people weren't being careful, I'm saying they're being a damn sight less careful than their should be, or than their equivalents were in other epochs of science.

>[That] is true of any scientific model and not a criticism...I have cut to the heart of your claims

I am not, indeed, making a criticism of LCDM (apart from stating I do not find it convincing, with perhaps a humorous tone in my earlier posts I see you couldn't handle), I am making a criticism of the thought patterns of cosmologists, on the whole, speaking as a group, fully acknowledging diversity and nuanced stances. I don't see what claims I have made, other than ones about cultural forces within the sciences, which you have only addressed by reiterating methodologies, rather than addressing culture in the sciences, upon which virtually every statement (except my long forgotten illustrative thought experiment) has been based, so I don't really see what it is you think you're demolishing. You are mostly talking to yourself at this point.

>sitting down and claiming observations might be biased is not useful. How are they biased?

How is pointing out potential bias unhelpful? Indeed, how will such bias ever otherwise be discovered if not by this means? I have specifically stated what I think the bias is, rephrasing it in virtually every post (owing to a continual reinforcement of the model by an insular community, observational and heuristic biases owing to our biological, sociocultural and technological heritage, and the expenditure of technological resources primarily on models based on their consensus, rather than their true fit combine to blind us to what may be significant but ignored alternatives, simply because they undermine cherished positions) and explained why statistical methods cannot account for them (the same biases which may be operating on the model may also be operating on our attempts to control for any error.) I can see why you think you have had the same argument with '1000s' of people, you don't even listen to what they're saying and just rattle off against a strawman in your head.

>>55310
Breath of fresh air! I very much like this idea and have thought something like this might underpin a hypothetical relationship between DE and the other fundamental forces. Has anyone thought of a way of testing this kind of 'negative space' description of DE, perhaps in a way to determine if indeed its effects are the result of a single or multiple forces?
>>
Caroline Herschel - Tue, 12 May 2015 11:44:32 EST vm/hJ7FL No.55314 Reply
>>55312
Not >>55309 but,

>> I am not calling them arrogant for no reason, but a very specific reason; the way they distribute the expenditure of their time and resources between pursuing the current prevalent theory, and investigating possible alternatives.

Pray tell, why would a field, any field, deviate very far from what their data and evidence is telling them? Alternate theories should be searched for yes, but in the confines of what the evidence is saying, not wasting time and money on a wild goose chase wherein the goose might not even exist.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Tue, 12 May 2015 19:04:26 EST RVWMYu65 No.55315 Reply
>>55312
Don't lie, you asked why is dark matter the hypothesis that's winning. In order to explain that I need to tell you about the standard model.

>I am not calling them arrogant for no reason, but a very specific reason; the way they distribute the expenditure of their time and resources between pursuing the current prevalent theory, and investigating possible alternatives.

People who disagree with you are not arrogant. Cosmology is plenty diverse but you only get money for big experiments when you have something to show for it. It is not anyone else's job to spend their career on bullshit to satisfy your need to "diversity" the field. I you have a wacky idea go test it yourself. Alternatives exist and are tested.

>my claim of massaging was directed as a claim of potential bias throughout the system of statistical science, owing to observational and heuristic effects

Backtracking and handwaving. Massaging the data is not experimental bias, it is active and conscious manipulation to mislead. You are not confusing terms you are making extremely serous accusations without a shred of evidence. The reason I come back to methodology is because you made started throwing around slander like this.

>How is pointing out potential bias unhelpful?

You're not pointing to bias. You're pointing to the idea that bias could exist. NO FUCKING SHIT. Sating the obvious is not helpful. If you were actually pointing to a source of bias I would be happy but your pointing to the concept.

>owing to a continual reinforcement of the model by an insular community, observational and heuristic biases owing to our biological, sociocultural and technological heritage, and the expenditure of technological resources primarily on models based on their consensus, rather than their true fit combine to blind us to what may be significant but ignored alternatives, simply because they undermine cherished positions

You now what never mind, this is a waste of time. You aren't using the word bias as a scientist. Bias in science is for example a Malmquist bias or a biased estimator, something in your experiment which skews your data and has to be accounted for. This is what statisticians spend all day working on. This is what people actually have to consider in their work, you don't see a conclusion where people list possible sources of systematic error to find "sociocultural and technological heritage". No. You believe the community could be blind to alternatives for X, Y and Z. Could. You haven't got an example of this but you have your belief and hence you have concluded that cosmologists are arrogant and massaging data.

No to answer that I point you to my original answer, we don't have to rely on anyone's opinion. We have statistics. Statistics doesn't cherish anyone's position.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Tue, 12 May 2015 19:14:35 EST RVWMYu65 No.55316 Reply
>>55310
Not exactly. Dark energy is most commonly explained by the presence of a cosmological constant. It's a term in Einstein's GR which falls out in the derivation, Einstein famously used it to fix a relativistic universe to be static when really the equations would predict a collapsing or expanding universe in the presence of matter only. The cosmological constant seems perfectly capable of doing the job but there are concerns with it and particle physics. In a sense the cosmological constant is gravity as we understand it today.

The next idea is to remove the issues with particle physics and set the cosmological constant to zero. It is replaced with modifications to Einstein's gravity at large scales. These other gravitational models can also describe dark energy as it is observed.

The other idea is of course 5th forces like quintessence. These are often harder to test but predictive models of them do exist.

This is why dark energy experiments are so big right now because cosmology has built a bridge to particle physics and the fundamental forces can be tested on the largest scales.
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Fri, 15 May 2015 16:17:06 EST AKbZww5z No.55320 Reply
>>55315
I agree, this is a waste of time. This thread has clearly already come to it's conclusions, mostly through just reiterating your own thoughts so loudly that any idea I was articulating got drowned out. For all the shit you know, you are really fucking dumb as a brick and painfully -- dangerously -- narrow minded. If you can't see the circular arguments in your own statements, I feel sorry for you son. Keep worshipping at the scientism altar for as long as you like. Good luck with that.
Nb because this thread was shittrolled into never really discussing the matter of the OP.
>>
Annie Cannon - Sun, 17 May 2015 19:05:23 EST X4AXKa/R No.55323 Reply
>>55320
Your entire argument is circular as I pointed out. When pressed for evidence all you do is dig the hole deeper and deeper and gradually add insults as sophism fails.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.