If 85% of the universe needs to be composed of dark matter for general relativity to work the way it does, isn't it simpler to conclude that general relativity simply doesn't work the way we think it does?When you presume that the standard model is correct, and that dark matter is needed for it to work, you're way more likely to just point at the few bits of evidence for dark matter detection and ignore all the failed attempts to detect it.You've already decided on the conclusion beforehand. The experiments and research don't matter.
>>16145926Relativity and dark matter are fake and gay. Everything that's not electricity or electromagnetism is just mischaracterized electricity and electromagnetism.
>>16145926>General relativity is predictive of nature to useful precision >Special relativity is predictive of nature to useful precision >Dark matter is a meaningless theory, but is seemingly predictive when we look millions of light years away through big telescopesI'm not a physicist, but the purpose of science is to be useful, not to fit into a model that makes sense. Actually, it's better that midwits don't get it.
>>16146005>I'm not a physicist>thats why I know how great general relativity isOK, thanks for the dunning krugerisms
>>16145926>I'm not a physicist>I'm literally a mentally ill retard who saves söyjaks on his hard drive>I've got relativity and dark matter all figured out
>>16145926Perhaps, but what is the alternative? Many have been tried, none have succeeded. If it interests you I suggest studying general relativity etc. yourself, otherwise it's really impossible to appreciate why dark matter is hypothesised and what the alternatives are.>>16146005Not really. Science has many purposes, and attempting to build a consistent and elegant theory of nature is a valid one.
>>16145926People have already devised altered GR models where gravity works different at large scales.
>>16145926>general relativitywhat if...laws work at certain scales only?
>>16146192yeah, and none of them work.
>>16146194what if a broken clock is right twice a day?
>>16146196Damn guess dark matter are particles after all
Mmm, I like ad quadratum like that. I found it formed a more coherent perspective, even if nothing was changed.Semi-Dimensional Analysis.
>>16146207It's the only idea (so far) that explains everything. So people can bitch and moan how DM does not exist as much as they want but if they can't offer a better alternative they are nothing more than cry babies.
>>16146213>offer a better alternativeThe cognitive abilities of the researchers is deficient. Literally all of them.Why did I never once use any DM nonsense in my Theory of Everything but you people's equations come out 85%+ OFF?!?!LMFAOOOOO......
>>16146215> The cognitive abilities of the researchers is deficient. Literally all of them.What does that make you? The mental equivalent of an amoeba?
>>16146215:,^)Good thing Im not stoned, probably would have thrown up over that from laughing so hard.
>>16146218>The mental equivalent of an amoeba?Both of us can calulate infinity.>Pi for cell Davision.How high can you count?I count 1 infinity at a time.
>>16146215Being within an order of magnitude is pretty good when it comes to Astronmy iirc.
>>16146230Anything short of 99.9___% accurate is hot garbage.Good Lord, no wonder academia is trash these days...
>>16145926>>16146005dark matter is bullshit. the universe is not homogeneous or isotropic, it was a dumb assumption from the start.
>Attend university or live on the streets.There was never a choice.
>>16146234That is an absurd standard to mandate for everything, unless you want lying about precision to be a standard in science.
>>16146234Why are you on a science board when you know nothing about science?
>>16145926There mere fact that you'd say something likes this means that you should probably leave the science to the adults. Hell, you should leave anything of consequence to the adults. Go get your mom to cook you some chicken tenders while you waste away another night on your computer.
>>16146248Hes a namefag he probably has faggy reasons to be here.
>>16146242>unless you want lying about precision to be a standard in science.YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT, MR.HARVARD ET AL.>>16146188Fukken Righity-riggity-rekt, you replication crisis WAS FROM YOUR WAY!YOURE THE PROBLEM, DUMB FUCK.>>16146248You have no business speaking on /sci/ about science, do you understand. You are not the professor, youre not even a student (learning here), instead you LAPRing (LYING) in the lab.GTFO.
>>16146257> Self link to a 144 view video.Xisters the science is over...
>>16146265Stop commiting shirk.>>16146257>YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT, MR.HARVARD ET AL.STOP PROVING ME RIGHT.
>>16145926its just a shit ton of regular matter that they arent able to see with telesCOPEs
>>16146005>predictiveWhen you add fudge numbers that need to be constantly adjusted to account for new data, it's not prediction, it's retrodiction.
>>16146198GR was formulated as a analogue of Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian was based on observations of our solar system. Theres no legitimate reason to expect that Newtonian mechanics or anything based on it should apply universally or anywhere outside our solar system.The Copernican principle is a conjecture with no rational basis, its akin to religious dogma
>>16145947Enter photo electric effect.
>>16146566Newtonian mechanics is based on Newtonian axioms, which are arguably universal. Kepler‘s laws just happened to be derivable from it.
>isn't it simpler to conclude that general relativity simply doesn't work the way we think it does?Why would that be simpler? In dark matter models you're just adding an unknown group of particles, one extra assumption. In modifying GR you are, at a minimum, adding some new field or term to the equations. One extra assumption, minimum. Not simpler. What you're describing is your bias, not actual simplicity. And it turns out it's not easy at all. Because saying "GR might be wrong" is easy, proposing a model which can solve these problems is not. The issue is there are basically an infinite number of ways GR can be modified, many of them are completely untestable. Pic related is a plot of just the different types of modified gravity models, each one is not one model but a whole class of many possibilities. And with all of these models, none of them fit the data as well as DM. Saying GR is wrong isn't so simple.
>>16146620This pic. > you're way more likely to just point at the few bits of evidence for dark matter detection and ignore all the failed attempts to detect it.And you will likely ignore all the failed attempts to look for deviations from general relativity. People have been testing it for a century now, there have been far more experiments than those looking for dark matter. And yet they have all failed to detect evidence that GR is wrong.>You've already decided on the conclusion beforehand.As opposed to you. You want to conclude GR must be at fault, despite having no experimental evidence or a working model. DM at least has the latter, and it has been very successful at predicting observations.
Another day, another gaggle of brainlets who think "bbbut have we considered that GR is wrong???" is some grand and novel statement. Hey OP, what's your proposal for modifying the EH action? Don't know what I'm talking about? Then shut your stupid fucking mouth until you have enough sense fucked into it to not spew your polluting bullshit on the board.
>>16145947https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophefunny you say that, Classical Electromagnetism and Mechanics utterly failed describing this.
>>16147275>empirically derived
>>16146688
>>16145926Wait until you find out that the only way this universe is random is if there are infinite other universes that can never be observed.
>>16148068haha, they ran out of italic halfway
>>16148071>muh fundamentally nondisprovable assertion not science
>>16146566>The Copernican principle is a conjecture with no rational basis, its akin to religious dogmaIt's basis is the static universe theory, which was disproved almost 100 years ago
>>16145926There will never be a 100% correct description of how reality works. General relativity is correct enough to be useful in many situations.
>>16147275>wikipediaits like admitting you have no idea what you're talking about
>>16151129>General relativity is correct enough to be useful in many situations.name one
>>16146215Your theory is wrong and your shit's all retarded
>>16153937orbit of mercury too
>>16153937it also predicted black holes, gravitational waves, time dilation (which actually affects satellites in orbit), etc..
>>16145947
>>16145926>If 85% of the universe needs to be composed of dark matter for general relativity to work the way it does, isn't it simpler to conclude that general relativity simply doesn't work the way we think it does?no absolutely not, the full decomposition of the universe and the range of possible matter its compososed of is nowhere near the level of understanding as relativity. It's why people come up with hypotheses for dark matter in the first place, since obviously if you stumble upon something you don't understand you look for the answers in areas that are incomplete not ones that are complete.
>>16153953how is that useful?>>16153955black holes don't even exist, if a theory predicts that black holes exist then that theory is wrong. your understanding of physics is at the popsci level, try passing your first semester of freshman level physics before commenting on the topic
>>16155912>black holes don't even exist, if a theory predicts that black holes exist then that theory is wrongcan't wait to see your paper debunking relativity and black holes. you are gonna publish something, right? this is monumental if true
>>16155941/sci/ should consider itself privileged that so many upright and glorious persons of genius grace us with their presence. Just imagine how poorer your life would be if you still thought black holes exist or that angular momentum is conserved.
>>16145926>If 85% of the universe needs to be composed of dark matter for general relativity to work the way it does, isn't it simpler to conclude that general relativity simply doesn't work the way we think it does?In a way, I'd say it casts some suspicion on the theory, yes. Nevertheless, it can't be worthless, either. Since many of its predictions such as gravitational waves, black holes, the gravitational red-shift and deflection of the starlight close to the sun turned out to be accurate. Also, bear in mind that "false predictions" do not necessitate the falseness of the theory. The motion of Uranus was not able to be predicted within Newtonian physics. However, the reason wasn't that Newtonian physics was wrong but a hitherto undiscovered planet. So physicists have good reason to be reluctant of abandoning or modifying a very successful theory.
>>16146578>Newtonian axiomsThey're not, anon. See Lorentz force as a counterexample. I think Newton started out from Kepler's laws and tried to mathematically simplify his premises to a point, where they were the most simple. Problem is, there's no rational basis for doing this and there's no guarantee that you end up with something that is "true".
>>16147398Ultraviolet catastrophe is a mathematical anomaly that is a consequence of classical mechanics and EM. Also inference on the basis of empiric data has been the modus operandi of physics since Galileo. Additionally, EM and classical mechanics cannot account for the motion of electron around the atomic nucleus. And finally, there is the photo electric effect that evidences the idea that radiation in the form of light is quantized.
>>16156825>Problem is, there's no rational basis for doing this and there's no guarantee that you end up with something that is "true".There is a rational basis for extrapolating laws from the current studied regimes to new ranges. It is pretty much all you can do. And you can test this extrapolation observationally. Newton could go beyond Kepler's laws and show that normal gravitation on Earth can be described by the same inverse square law. Newtonian gravity and GR have been tested extensively beyond the solar system, predicting the orbits of binary stars, orbits around black holes, gravitational lensing... No model or theory is ever proven true in empirical science, it's either consistent with the data or wrong. Nobody is claiming anything has been proven true.
>>16156861>Hume's problemYou're reasoning inductively. Which is fine by me, as that's how science has to operate. But you can't claim the label of "rationality" for this sort of going about things.
>>16156861Also something that I forgot. The simplicity of a theory might be compelling, but it's not a necessary condition for truth.
>>16156861>it's either consistent with the data or wrongI think that's too simplistic, as I have already tried to argue in the second paragraph of this post >>16156812.
>>16156878>But you can't claim the label of "rationality" for this sort of going about things.I'm not going to argue semantics. Pure philosophy does not have a monopoly on rationality. The logical of empirical science is quite compelling, as you acknowledge. >>16156883You are the only one talking about truth. No one claims that.>>16156886>it's either consistent with the data or wrong>I think that's too simplistic,No it is correct. Failed predictions are not the same as ruling out a model. The prediction of Neptune for example was also based on the observations at the time. This prediction failing does not rule out Newtonian gravity. For something to be ruled out it has to be a clean and general test. >>16156812>The motion of Uranus was not able to be predicted within Newtonian physics.That is not really the case. In that case you are testing the predictions of Newtonian physics plus a model of the solar system. Newtonian physics does not include the later. You only know the combination is wrong, you cannot say Newtonian gravity alone is at fault.
>>16156925If I post a thread about "philosophy of science" for 30 days, can you reasonably infer that I'm going to posts such a thread on the 31st day? I don't think you can and the expectation that I would can not be "rational", I'd think you'd agree. Same with experiments in e.g. physics. Of course, in practice you'd not care and rightfully so. However, it's a matter of integrity and being transparent to admit to assumptions that you have to make necessarily. >You are the only one talking about truth. No one claims that.What would be the point of the Newtonian axioms, if they have the same claim to truth that Kepler's laws have had? What Newton's Principia Mathematica be other than an exercise in mathematics? >The motion of Uranus was not able to be predicted within Newtonian physics.The wording of this was a bit unfortunate, agreed.
What if there is a really dense shell covering the whole universe?
>>16156991why? and covering from what?
>>16156975>However, it's a matter of integrity and being transparent to admit to assumptions that you have to make necessarily. It is utterly pointless through as all this boils down to semantics. Your definition of rationality is not one I subscribe to. >What would be the point of the Newtonian axioms, if they have the same claim to truth that Kepler's laws have had?Neither are claimed to be true. >What Newton's Principia Mathematica be other than an exercise in mathematics?To understand the natural world, and to layout a mathematical model to understand it. That model can never be confirmed to be true, but it can be tested and rejected if it's obviously wrong.
>>16157003You don't need to know my definition of rationality. It's not necessary. I asked, whether or not you'd think the inference in the first paragraph of this post >>16156975 is rational. I assumed, you'd say no. You can correct me, if you disagree.>To understand the natural world, and to layout a mathematical model to understand it. The reason, why we use Newtonian physics on stars, planets, moons and asteroids is because we're assuming that the explanation of gravity is (partially) true. Do you use "tertium non datur" law?
>>16157020That's the value of Newton's Principia that he embedded Kepler's observational laws in a explanatory framework that enabled the generalization from sun and earth to stars, planets, moons, asteroids. However, that necessitates that this explanation has a meaning in the world we live in, i.e. that it has some claim to the truth.
>>16157020>If I post a thread about "philosophy of science" for 30 days, can you reasonably infer that I'm going to posts such a thread on the 31st day? I don't think you can and the expectation that I would can not be "rational", I'd think you'd agree.Science is not just extrapolations. It's in building models which can be tested against new data. It's not just making extrapolations for the hell of it, it's to test and reject models. If I have two models, one predicts you will post the next day and one which says you wont. If you do post on the 31th day then clearly the later model is wrong. The former model survives, prediction confirmed. But nobody is claiming it is "true". Is this rational? I'd say it is.>The reason, why we use Newtonian physics on stars, planets, moons and asteroids is because we're assuming that the explanation of gravity is (partially) true. Not required no. If people assumed it was true they wouldn't be out there testing it. It is clear it is a close approximation of reality. And we know it isn't even very accurate, hence GR.
>>16157022>However, that necessitates that this explanation has a meaning in the world we live in, i.e. that it has some claim to the truth.Do we need to subscribe to a correspondence model of truth for this to be, err, true?
>>16156829>Rayleigh believed that this discrepancy could be resolved by the equipartition theorem failing to be valid for high-frequency vibrations, while Jeans argued that the underlying cause was matter and luminiferous aether not being in thermal equilibrium.I don't know, the latter assumption looks reasonable enough to me. It wasn't looked into because physicists decided that "what if we didn't have to think things through in terms of physical objects anymore?" was a good course of action for their field from then on.Also, the photoelectric effect can be explained by limiting quantum effects to atoms only. How those quantum effects come to be we'll never know, because, again, physicists really don't want to put in the work and imagine that the atom might have an internal structure.
>>16157442Not to me. You'd have to be able to derive Plank's law using EM and classical mechanics, which has never been accomplished neither by Rayleigh, by Jeans or by anyone.. because quantization of energy is necessary. >Also, the photoelectric effect can be explained by limiting quantum effects to atoms only.Then come up with a model, if you're so sure of yourself.
>>16146005you can't use dark matter to predict gravitational effects without first using gravitational effects to say where dark matter is.Dark matter is literally an error term that's bigger than what we can measure from known sources.
>>16146005>I'm not a physicistOh ok. Opinion discarded. GTFO
>>16158843You don't need to be a scientist to discuss the value of a scientific theory. It's a quintessentially philosophical question.
>>16158303Dark matter is a constant thats a variable, its a god mode cheat for academic physics
>>16145926Dark matter is the modern-day phlogiston.
>>16158882you need to be a scientist to assign it a value tho
>>16156792>singularities form from rapidly rotating neutron starshow is that possible if angular momentum is conserved?
>>16145926You fall for the fake too. It has to be inconsistent to sell it and bind the septic like you. Religions always work that way to gain money, pensions and status.
