Do you believe we are alone in the universe?

The universe is far, far, far too big and ancient a place to reasonably rule out life elsewhere. Even if the galaxy is currently lacking intelligent life other than our own (and I'm not convinced it is - our expectations of what intelligent life should be doing with itself is, obviously, prejudiced toward our own ideals), I don't think it was nor will be. I'm also much more optimistic about FTL.

 

[Istbor]

I believe the point is, Math shows there is something at work there. As stated, things don't match up with our best projected mass of the galaxy. There is still a large amount of mass out there causing what we are seeing.

Sure, we could pretend there is something not right with our understanding of gravity, but that would probably be far more complicated, than a material that we fail to observe currently.

All of our Math and current understanding of the universe tells us there is something missing. I don't think it is a stretch to name whatever that unknown thing is, and then search out for answers to the equations we understand to be correct.

I don't see that as magic at all.

However...

View attachment 103604

 

[Morrus]

I thought the "is space infinite" question was largely resolved. If space was truly infinite, then the night sky would be solid white with stars. In an infinite universe, you would have infinite stars, therefore, from our point of view, there would be almost no space between the stars in the night sky. At least, that's the way it was explained to me.

Nope. The universe is 14B years old. Space is more than 14B light years in diameter. If light moved at infinite speed, then yes, it would all reach us at the same time and it would all be white. But it doesn't - the light further than 14B light years away from us hasn't reached us yet. If space was *infinite* then the light from stars an infinite distance away would take an infinite amount of time to reach us, so we'd never see it.

But, @Morrus, I'm certainly no anti-scientist campaigner. Just pointing out that in one branch of science, the rules get... err... relaxed somewhat.

What rules? And again, I ask, what is this "leeway" they're being granted, and by whom? They're just people doing science and publishing their findings.

They produce solid mathematics-filled peer-reviewed papers. What one reads in the popular press isn't scientific papers, and when one argues against what one read in the popular press, one isn't arguing against anything other than journalist's poor explanations and simplistic interpretations of 40 pages of equations and bad analogies.

 

[Hussar]

Nope. The universe is 14B years old. Space is more than 14B light years in diameter. If light moved at infinite speed, then yes, it would all reach us at the same time and it would all be white. But it doesn't - the light further than 14B light years away from us hasn't reached us yet. If space was *infinite* then the light from stars an infinite distance away would take an infinite amount of time to reach us, so we'd never see it.



What rules? And again, I ask, what is this "leeway" they're being granted, and by whom? They're just people doing science and publishing their findings.

They produce solid mathematics-filled peer-reviewed papers. What one reads in the popular press isn't scientific papers, and when one argues against what one read in the popular press, one isn't arguing against anything other than journalist's poor explanations and simplistic interpretations of 40 pages of equations and bad analogies.

But, the thing is, because of the Big Bang, all the stars in the universe existed in a much smaller space at the beginning of the universe. While I realize more stars are being created, it doesn't really matter. All the light from every star in the universe has already reached us. Again, that's the way it was explained to me. Seems to make sense to me. But, hey, I'm flexible.

But, as far as rules go, the basic, fundamental rule of science is things must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then it isn't really science. Since we cannot actually falsify dark matter in any way, it remains entirely theoretical and will remain so until such time as we can figure out a way to actually test for dark matter. IOW, how can you be doing science when nothing you do can actually be tested?

We can test for, say, relativity. We can test for climate change. We cannot test for dark matter. We just have to take it on faith because it balances our own equations. Thus, as I said, astronomers tend to get a lot more wiggle room than other sciences.

 

[Morrus]

But, the thing is, because of the Big Bang, all the stars in the universe existed in a much smaller space at the beginning of the universe. While I realize more stars are being created, it doesn't really matter. All the light from every star in the universe has already reached us. Again, that's the way it was explained to me. Seems to make sense to me. But, hey, I'm flexible.

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.

But, as far as rules go, the basic, fundamental rule of science is things must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then it isn't really science. Since we cannot actually falsify dark matter in any way, it remains entirely theoretical and will remain so until such time as we can figure out a way to actually test for dark matter. IOW, how can you be doing science when nothing you do can actually be tested?

We can test for, say, relativity. We can test for climate change. We cannot test for dark matter. We just have to take it on faith because it balances our own equations.

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.

Thus, as I said, astronomers tend to get a lot more wiggle room than other sciences.

Yes, it's the third time you've said it. It still doesn't mean anything. It won't when you say it for a fourth time, either - repeating it won't make it mean anything.

 

[dragoner]

We cannot test for dark matter. We just have to take it on faith because it balances our own equations.

No, we can see the effect of dark matter through gravitational lensing, even if we can't see it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, we can see the effect of dark matter through gravitational lensing, even if we can't see it.

No, we see gravitational lensing greater than explained by matter we can see and current theory and so use dark matter as a stand in to make our maths work.

Order matters. We're not observing dark matter, we're postulating dark matter as an explanation for what we observe.

 

[dragoner]

We're not observing dark matter, we're postulating dark matter as an explanation for what we observe.

Here you are restating what I stated.

Observable phenomena is observable phenomena, and dark matter is the theory among many other competing theories that has held up. It is the theory that best fits the data we have.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Here you are restating what I stated.

Not really. The distinction matters.

Observable phenomena is observable phenomena, and dark matter is the theory among many other competing theories that has held up. It is the theory that best fits the data we have.

Which theory of dark matter is that, then? There are a few, none proven. Yes, assuming invisible and undetected mass balances our equations nicely, but there's no single theory of dark matter. And, there could be another reason we just haven't discovered yet.

 

[dragoner]

And, there could be another reason we just haven't discovered yet.

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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

So, then, we're done at "dark matter?"