Why should people missing 85 percent of an equation (dark matter)

[Menan]

be treated seriously.  Would you pass class if you completed 15 percent of the exam?   Really, one fact that I know is that none of the universe is missing, it's all there just where it belongs. The thing is to comprehend that we do not comprehend what the universe is.  So is the universe wrong, the math wrong, or is the math right and we just have no vision to apply the math because what we see is not what we think we see.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Menan said:

be treated seriously.  Would you pass class if you completed 15 percent of the exam?   Really, one fact that I know is that none of the universe is missing, it's all there just where it belongs. The thing is to comprehend that we do not comprehend what the universe is.  So is the universe wrong, the math wrong, or is the math right and we just have no vision to apply the math because what we see is not what we think we see.

 

I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[Danijel Gorupec]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Not yet fully understood? Sorry, but it is closer to 'we have no idea'. Do you disagree, do you feel that science must be defended by not admitting this, or did you just made a language-use mistake?

[Silvestru]

25 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Not yet fully understood? Sorry, but it is closer to 'we have no idea'. Do you disagree, do you feel that science must be defended by not admitting this, or did you just made a language-use mistake?

What do you mean admit? who do you feel that anyone owes you anything? Do you have a better model to explain why galaxies don't fly apart from each other? I am waiting

Edited October 31, 2018 by Silvestru

[Endy0816]

We've spotted Hydrogen attracted to it, like water droplets on a web.

Real enough just have to be clever in how we observe it.

[Strange]

Your point is not very logical. You only know that we don’t know what 85% of the universe is because the scientists you despise told you so. 

 

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Not yet fully understood? Sorry, but it is closer to 'we have no idea'.

Not really. We know a lot about dark matter (less about dark energy). And a lot about what it cannot be. 

Also, none of the equation is missing. We just don’t know exactly what makes up some of the values. It may be frustrating but science is always incomplete. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Menan said:

we just have no vision to apply the math because what we see is not what we think we see.

As you have no better ideas (except to complain) I will leave it to the highly imaginative and knowledgable scientists to come up with a solution.

And, almost certainly, more questions. Because that is what is so great about science!

[mistermack]

I think the OP has a valid point. 

If you ever get cancer, I recommend that you get a shaman to do the bone dance around you, and a priest to bless you. Forget modern science, cancer is too serious for that rubbish. 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think the OP has a valid point. 

If you ever get cancer, I recommend that you get a shaman to do the bone dance around you, and a priest to bless you. Forget modern science, cancer is too serious for that rubbish. 

After all, we still don't know what that 97% of "junk DNA" does, therefore we don't know anything about biology or medicine.

[Menan]

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

What do you mean admit? who do you feel that anyone owes you anything? Do you have a better model to explain why galaxies don't fly apart from each other? I am waiting

Little children make models quite often

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Menan said:

be treated seriously.  Would you pass class if you completed 15 percent of the exam?   Really, one fact that I know is that none of the universe is missing, it's all there just where it belongs. The thing is to comprehend that we do not comprehend what the universe is.  So is the universe wrong, the math wrong, or is the math right and we just have no vision to apply the math because what we see is not what we think we see.

You could make a similar statement about the state of science. There's a whole bunch of stuff we haven't discovered. If you made this statement ca 1900, and only looked at what we've found in the last 118 years, the number would likely be far smaller than 15%.

Do you give science a failing grade, because it hasn't discovered 65% of all there is to know? Is that even a reasonable metric to use for this measurement? 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Menan said:

Little children make models quite often

They are not usually detailed mathematical models of the entire universe. Models that allow us to find out that the majority of the universe consists of things we cannot (yet) detect directly.

If it weren't for these models, you wouldn't have been able to open this thread to whinge about this!

[Menan]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

After all, we still don't know what that 97% of "junk DNA" does, therefore we don't know anything about biology or medicine.

Not only do we not understand how so called junk DNA works, we actually have no idea how DNA does anything.  Sure we see the coding and know that things are recorded in a chemical sort of computer program, but explain how a dog knows what to track without ever tracking anything or following the pack to learn? The mouse and the cherry blossom experiment proves that random mutation is not needed for change and it also proves that the reproductive cells can be changed in a living adult so that first generation offspring can be beneficially mutated to a new environmental challenge.  This effectively tosses every text that even mentions Darwin. So much more is going on then we can see that we might as well be blind.

The cherry blossom experiment is another full discussion though 

 

Again you believe that you know how the universe began billions of years ago, but can not tell me what is in my left pocket, even though in terms of the universe, we are touching right now.

Arrogance

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You could make a similar statement about the state of science. There's a whole bunch of stuff we haven't discovered. If you made this statement ca 1900, and only looked at what we've found in the last 118 years, the number would likely be far smaller than 15%.

Do you give science a failing grade, because it hasn't discovered 65% of all there is to know? Is that even a reasonable metric to use for this measurement? 

Actually I am not one of those people who rejects any of science, I am just keeping perspective. 

Where do you get a 65 percent number of what's not known?  Because what is not known defies any label at all, your statement is wrong and arrogant, you will see this if you apply logic

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Not only do we not understand how so called junk DNA works, we actually have no idea how DNA does anything. 

Again you are confusing "not knowing everything" with "knowing nothing". The first time could have been an honest error. Repeating it after it has been explained appears to be deliberately dishonest.

Would you really refuse to see a doctor if you are seriously ill because he doesn't know absolutely everything?

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

The mouse and the cherry blossom experiment

Citation needed. (But in a different thread, please.)

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Again you believe that you know how the universe began billions of years ago

No one knows, or claims to know that (apart from some religions). It is not even known if the universe did begin.

Your arguments seem to impaired by the fact you don't know very much about the subjects you are discussing. (Which, by your logic, would mean you know nothing about them.)

Edited October 31, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Menan said:

Actually I am not one of those people who rejects any of science, I am just keeping perspective. 

And yet you are using technology based on science. How is that not massively hypocritical?

Quote

Where do you get a 65 percent number of what's not known?  Because what is not known defies any label at all, your statement is wrong and arrogant, you will see this if you apply logic

65% is a common demarcation line for a failing grade.

But we can't determine how much is not known, so science would have to get an "incomplete" and IMO that's fine. As I implied, this is not a valid way of looking at it. It's a question of whether science works, and the answer to that is "yes", and of whether there is a better way to go about it. 

[Menan]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

They are not usually detailed mathematical models of the entire universe. Models that allow us to find out that the majority of the universe consists of things we cannot (yet) detect directly.

If it weren't for these models, you wouldn't have been able to open this thread to whinge about this!

The problem is that people believed Einstein when he said that the universe was a static bubble.  He believed himself too, accept that the likelihood that relativity is right is at least equal to it being wrong because it's math fails.  Do you accept that there is no math proving universal speeded expansion, but that we can land a space probe an inch away from it's target with an atom of fuel to spare after traveling and orbiting between planets.  So the math works, but it also proves the universe is wrong, or our understanding is wrong.

I submit for peer review that the universe can not be wrong...…………………….but that you can

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And yet you are using technology based on science. How is that not massively hypocritical?

65% is a common demarcation line for a failing grade.

But we can't determine how much is not known, so science would have to get an "incomplete" and IMO that's fine. As I implied, this is not a valid way of looking at it. It's a question of whether science works, and the answer to that is "yes", and of whether there is a better way to go about it. 

I said that I do not reject science, and I built this computer.  Back to you

[swansont]

Just now, Menan said:

The problem is that people believed Einstein when he said that the universe was a static bubble.  He believed himself too, accept that the likelihood that relativity is right is at least equal to it being wrong because it's math fails.  Do you accept that there is no math proving universal speeded expansion, but that we can land a space probe an inch away from it's target with an atom of fuel to spare after traveling and orbiting between planets.  So the math works, but it also proves the universe is wrong, or our understanding is wrong.

Einstein made the universe static because that was the common thought — there was no evidence of expansion until later on. 

Math won't "prove" anything in science, because science is inductive.

You aren't going to get very far based on misconceptions and misunderstandings. At best you will destroy a bunch of straw men and waste everyone's time.

Just now, Menan said:

I submit for peer review that the universe can not be wrong...…………………….but that you can

That proposition has been accepted for a very long time.

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

I said that I do not reject science, and I built this computer.  Back to you

I misread. Apologies. I retract my statement.

[Menan]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Einstein made the universe static because that was the common thought — there was no evidence of expansion until later on. 

Math won't "prove" anything in science, because science is inductive.

You aren't going to get very far based on misconceptions and misunderstandings. At best you will destroy a bunch of straw men and waste everyone's time.

That proposition has been accepted for a very long time.

I misread. Apologies. I retract my statement.

So Einstein based science on the common thought.

 

Examples of common thought.  Earth flat, God did it

 

The defense rest

Edited October 31, 2018 by Menan

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Menan said:

The problem is that people believed Einstein when he said that the universe was a static bubble.

Only because that was what everyone assumed at the time. This wasn't;t an idea Einstein invented. There was no reason (ie no evidence) to think otherwise. 

13 minutes ago, Menan said:

Do you accept that there is no math proving universal speeded expansion, but that we can land a space probe an inch away from it's target with an atom of fuel to spare after traveling and orbiting between planets.  So the math works, but it also proves the universe is wrong, or our understanding is wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no math proving universal speeded expansion". The idea that the universe could be expanding came first from the math and then was confirmed by evidence. So the math worked in that case as well.

And then further evidence showed that the expansion was accelerating and this was taken into account in the math. (This was not the first time this had been done; various values for the lambda had been suggested in the past to explain other observations.)

16 minutes ago, Menan said:

I submit for peer review that the universe can not be wrong...…………………….but that you can

As I have said several times, science is always "wrong" (in some sense). So you are really not saying anything insightful or clever here.

 

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

So Einstein based science on the common thought.

That is not what was said. The general consensus was that the universe was static (and, as Newton had proved, infinite) because there was no evidence to the contrary. 

5 minutes ago, Menan said:

The defense rest

Maybe you could use some of your downtime to learn some basic physics?

[Menan]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Only because that was what everyone assumed at the time. This wasn't;t an idea Einstein invented. There was no reason (ie no evidence) to think otherwise. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "no math proving universal speeded expansion". The idea that the universe could be expanding came first from the math and then was confirmed by evidence. So the math worked in that case as well.

And then further evidence showed that the expansion was accelerating and this was taken into account in the math. (This was not the first time this had been done; various values for the lambda had been suggested in the past to explain other observations.)

As I have said several times, science is always "wrong" (in some sense). So you are really not saying anything insightful or clever here.

 

The math that requires dark matter as a variable to be proved, is based not upon universal expansion, but of speeded up expansion.  There needs to be a factor or energy not providing the expansion but one providing continued energy and increasing speed.  The big bang as a slowing entity is not happening, it is being added too

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Only because that was what everyone assumed at the time. This wasn't;t an idea Einstein invented. There was no reason (ie no evidence) to think otherwise. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "no math proving universal speeded expansion". The idea that the universe could be expanding came first from the math and then was confirmed by evidence. So the math worked in that case as well.

And then further evidence showed that the expansion was accelerating and this was taken into account in the math. (This was not the first time this had been done; various values for the lambda had been suggested in the past to explain other observations.)

As I have said several times, science is always "wrong" (in some sense). So you are really not saying anything insightful or clever here.

 

That is not what was said. The general consensus was that the universe was static (and, as Newton had proved, infinite) because there was no evidence to the contrary. 

Maybe you could use some of your downtime to learn some basic physics?

Learn that 85 percent of the universe is missing.  Sorry can't do that because I know it's all there, you might to do some reprogramming yourself

Again this computer was born of my hand, most come from best buy

Edited October 31, 2018 by Menan

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

The math that requires dark matter as a variable to be proved, is based not upon universal expansion, but of speeded up expansion.

That would be dark energy, not dark matter.

And you seem to have it the wrong way round. The value of the variable is set based upon the evidence (such as the rate at which expansion is speeding up). The math is "proved" (ie the theory is confirmed) by the fact it matches the evidence.

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

There needs to be a factor or energy not providing the expansion but one providing continued energy increasing speed.  The big bang as a slowing entity is not happening, it is being added too

Correct. It was slowing initially but is now accelerating. Hence we can calculate the value of lambda in the equation.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Strange

[Menan]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

That would be dark energy, not dark matter.

And you seem to have it the wrong way round. The value of the variable is set based upon the evidence (such as the rate at which expansion is speeding up).

Correct. It was slowing initially but is now accelerating. Hence we can calculate the value of lambda in the equation.

Dark energy and or matter are interchangeable terms because nether has been defined.  Claiming that the universe slowed and is now accelerating is not inferred form any evidence.  In reality it was slowing because the big bang was compared to a big explosion on Earth where the energy is reduced as the blast spreads outward, and people made a correlation.  Newer evidence shows the expansion speeding up, it was always speeding up even when no one knew.

Jesus think instead of repeating nonsense

 

Give me a million negative ratings, but you will all be dead before I am disproved.  If you think I need to be accepted by people who completed 15 percent of an equation think again.  Keep thinking because they are banging their heads and many are saying that we were wrong

Edited October 31, 2018 by Menan

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Dark energy and or matter are interchangeable terms because nether has been defined.

Nonsense. They are completely different things, intended to solve completely different problems and with completely different properties. 

You should perhaps find out what their definitions are before spouting off like this and making yourself look silly.

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Claiming that the universe slowed and is now accelerating is not inferred form any evidence. 

Of course it is. Do you think scientists just got bored one day and said, "hey why don't we pretend the expansion is accelerating; that'll be a laugh".

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

In reality it was slowing because the big bang was compared to a big explosion

The Big Bang model is nothing like an explosion. 

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Newer evidence shows the expansion speeding up, it was always speeding up even when no one knew.

That is not what the evidence shows. Three guys got a Nobel Prize for this. Did you miss it?

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Jesus think instead of repeating nonsense

That "spring" noise you heard was my irony meter breaking.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Strange

[Menan]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. They are completely different things, intended to solve completely different problems and with completely different properties. 

You should perhaps find out what their definitions are before spouting off like this and making yourself look silly.

Of course it is. Do you think scientists just got bored one day and said, "hey why don't we pretend the expansion is accelerating; that'll be a laugh".

The Big Bang model is nothing like an explosion. 

That is not what the evidence shows. 

That "spring" noise you heard was my irony meter breaking.

LOL, so you are the one who understands the difference between dark matter and energy, when both are just needed variables in an equation that might be totally wrong in the first place.

Then you can solve the universe now.

Go kid

Edited October 31, 2018 by Menan

[koti]

12 minutes ago, Menan said:

Go kid

Youre not very perceptive are you. Strange is in his retirement age.