Do you believe we are alone in the universe?

Maxperson · Dec 11, 2018

Morrus said:
I think the issue here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the amount of work that goes into serious science, and a frankly insulting trivialization of that work into soundbytes like "magic particles" and implications that scientists just “make stuff up”. It's the traditional weapons of the psuedoscientist and the anti-science campaigners.

I understand that a lot of work and match goes into these theories. And I'm certainly not an anti-science person. However, at the root of these theories are ideas that are put forth to explain things that we don't understand, and even with all that work, are often wrong. I love reading about science. Especially astronomy. Dark matter/energy just doesn't seem to me to be any less of a "hack"(To use [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s term) than the theory that negative matter is being created. I'm sure work went into that theory as well.

Hussar · Dec 11, 2018

Morrus said:
Somebody explained it wrong. The universe expands faster than the speed of light. Remember, the speed of light relates to movement within space-time, not the expansion of space-time.

Theoretical physics is a thing. You can choose to disbelieve in it, I guess, but as Neil deGrass Tyson once said (unfortunate choice of scientist at the present time, sadly, but the quote is relevant) -- "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."

I mean, sure. Say theoretical physics "isn't really science". Say Stephen Hawking (RIP) and Einstein and Newton, three of many great theoretical physicists, weren't really "doing science". Say all those scientists working on dark matter aren't really doing science. But that doesn't make you look good.

There's a difference though. EVERYTHING Einstein, Hawking and Newton have done have been falsifiable. Every single thing. So, no, they are doing very real science.

Postulating completely unverifiable elements to make your equations work is not good science.

Now, at the moment, it's the best we've got, so, there's that.

In any case, I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek and poking a bit of fun at astronomers. But, I would point out, "isn't really science" is not what I said. What I said was that astronomy gets a bit more latitude than other sciences when it comes time to actually prove their hypotheses. Being able to make up stuff just so your equations work doesn't work in other sciences.

And, unfortunately, people who get into sciences can be just as dogmatic as anyone else. I mean, you're apparently absolutely sure that your model of the universe is correct despite the fact that it hasn't actually been proven and remains largely theoretical. I mean, heck, NASA says you're wrong: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-sky.html

I'm a little more comfortable believing NASA than you, [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION].

Maxperson · Dec 11, 2018

Morrus said:
Theoretical physics is a thing. You can choose to disbelieve in it, I guess, but as Neil deGrass Tyson once said (unfortunate choice of scientist at the present time, sadly, but the quote is relevant) -- "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."

One of my favorite things that doesn't make sense to us right now is the zombie star.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/us/zombie-star-survives-supernova/index.html

Umbran · Dec 11, 2018

Hussar said:
There's a difference though. EVERYTHING Einstein, Hawking and Newton have done have been falsifiable. Every single thing. So, no, they are doing very real science.

Postulating completely unverifiable elements to make your equations work is not good science.

Well, postulating things that are not verifiable, even in theory, is not good science.

Postulating stuff that you just haven't figured out how to verify *yet* is fine. A whole lot of chemistry, atomic, and particle physics went or currently goes this way.

Umbran · Dec 11, 2018

Maxperson said:
Dark matter/energy just doesn't seem to me to be any less of a "hack"(To use [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s term) than the theory that negative matter is being created. I'm sure work went into that theory as well.

The theory that there's matter out there we cannot see has been knocking around since the 1920s. More serious support for its existence using galaxy rotation speeds came along in the 1970s. This has been around for decades, slowing gaining support in the data.

The paper for this new thing, however, was published this year. It is *far less* worked through.

And, reading the paper, I don't feel he goes into the thermodynamic issue well enough at all. I follow his math well enough, but there are things buried in, "Such speculations can be considered more rigorously in future works." So, I am not convinced.

Maxperson · Dec 11, 2018

dragoner said:
Yes really, the distinction is meaningless; what counts is that the numbers work, and it explains observable phenomena. It is not "take it on faith" or "just making stuff up"; that is incorrect.

Here's the thing, though. We're observing 16 and plugging in 8+8(Dark matter/energy). Sure the math works and explains the observable 16, but so could 4x4, 12+4, 18-2, and so on. Just because the math works out and explains things, doesn't mean that it's correct. It doesn't even mean that it's probably correct. We have no idea. All we really know is that we've stuck in math that works.

dragoner · Dec 11, 2018

Maxperson said:
Just because the math works out and explains things, doesn't mean that it's correct. It doesn't even mean that it's probably correct. We have no idea. All we really know is that we've stuck in math that works.

The equations are much more complex, as is the observable data. So the theory does represent the best solution; and general parsimony says the most direct solution is likely to be true.

It's not "taking it on faith", for example, you know baby pigeons exist because you see adult pigeons, so the knowledge that the baby pigeons exist even if you don't see them is informed by seeing the adult. Thus similar to seeing gravitational lensing, we might not see that mass there, except the informed assumption (scientific parsimony) would be that it exists.

Edit:

Statements such as:

"Just because the math works out and explains things, (it) doesn't mean that it's correct."

Can be falsified as:

"Just because the math works out and explains things, (it) does mean that it's correct."

Are simultaneously correct until one is disproved, so essentially they are null until that occurs.

Maxperson · Dec 11, 2018

dragoner said:
The equations are much more complex, as is the observable data. So the theory does represent the best solution; and general parsimony says the most direct solution is likely to be true.

I think it's hubris to assume that it's the best solution. There could literally be millions of better solutions that we haven't thought up yet. Just because it might be the best solution that we've thought up so far, doesn't meant that it is the best solution, or that it's even in the running for the best 100 solutions.

It's not "taking it on faith", for example, you know baby pigeons exist because you see adult pigeons, so the knowledge that the baby pigeons exist even if you don't see them is informed by seeing the adult. Thus similar to seeing gravitational lensing, we might not see that mass there, except the informed assumption (scientific parsimony) would be that it exists.

Or is causes by something completely different. We're assuming that it's caused by mass, and further assuming that it's caused by invisible mass rather than say an unknown property of the mass that we can see.

Morrus · Dec 11, 2018

Hussar said:
And, unfortunately, people who get into sciences can be just as dogmatic as anyone else. I mean, you're apparently absolutely sure that your model of the universe is correct despite the fact that it hasn't actually been proven and remains largely theoretical. I mean, heck, NASA says you're wrong: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-sky.html

That does not contradict anything I said.

I'm a little more comfortable believing NASA than you, @Morrus.

What a weirdly aggressive thing to say.

dragoner · Dec 11, 2018

Maxperson said:
I think it's hubris to assume that it's the best solution. There could literally be millions of better solutions that we haven't thought up yet. Just because it might be the best solution that we've thought up so far, doesn't meant that it is the best solution, or that it's even in the running for the best 100 solutions.

It's not hubris at all, as a matter of fact, the negative mass paper from Oxford is a perfect example of other ideas being entertained. Best solution is best solution, it's the piece of the puzzle with the least gaps. Not entertaining, or giving equal weight to crank theories, is not hubris, nor is disregarding people who do not know what they are talking about.

Or is causes by something completely different. We're assuming that it's caused by mass, and further assuming that it's caused by invisible mass rather than say an unknown property of the mass that we can see.

The most simple solution being true (sometimes called Occam's Razor, or Scientific Parsimony); gravitational lensing by mass is the safest bet, rather than an "unknown property" of mass we can see. Because, that (unknown properties) doesn't even fit any theory.

Do you believe we are alone in the universe?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Hussar

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Umbran

Mod Squad

Umbran

Mod Squad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Morrus

Well, that was fun

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com

Similar Threads

Related Articles