Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6041608" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>The point I was trying to make is that only RECENTLY has there been more interest in non-Dark Matter theories. They have been around for about 30 years out of the 40 years that scientists have been actively trying to pursue DM, but mainstream scientists have called them radical theories for decades. Now, not so radical as more and more scientists are slowly starting to examine them more carefully. Part of the reason for this is lack of results for DM. Part of the reason for this might be because as more elderly / well known scientists who were a bit more rigid in their thinking that DM was the only possible answer have moved on (retired, died, etc.), similar to what happened with the few holdouts of the Static State theory.</p><p></p><p>Yes, some scientists are slowly getting around to being open minded on this, but for several decades, not so much. Here is just one example of where your claim to open mindedness by scientists doesn't hold much water if it takes three or four decades for them to consider other explanations as maybe not so radical after all. And, many scientists still will not consider anything other than DM.</p><p></p><p>To be considered open minded, one should examine different possibilities, not just pick the most popular one and stick to it.</p><p></p><p>This might be what you were not following from what I posted. This is an example of resistance to other ideas that has been happening for decades (since the birth of science actually since science is done by people). It disagrees completely with your claim of how most scientists function.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not enamored by any specific theory. I was using this as an example. DM is just one of several different theories that didn't seem to have evidence to support it. It never has. Galaxies have observational effects which it tries to fill the hole for, but no evidence. The observations are real (or at least as real as our tools allow us to observe). The theory, maybe, maybe not. And, I don't know if it is Mond or Electromagnetic attraction or something else. All I know is the DM might not be the answer based on what some scientists are now saying. I take what I understand from them. I don't have an agenda (other than discussing it).</p><p></p><p>It's like Dark Energy. Scientists can state the observational effects that they use it to try to explain, but an explanation for what causes it is still pie in the sky. Until they can explain exactly what it is and what is causing it and they have evidence to illustrate this, there is a fair chance that it might be an incorrect theory.</p><p></p><p>When one comes up with a theory for science, one has to do experimentation to support or disprove the theory. In both cases here, there is an effect (galaxy rotational speed/lensing and apparent acceleration of universal expansion). But, the explanations for why these are occurring have no real teeth. There is DM. What is it? Don't actually know. There is DE. What is it? Don't actually know. Scientists have tried to come up with the actual answers, but so far, zip, zilch, nada. Some theories. Few real answers.</p><p></p><p>As an example, NASA scientists have stated that Dark Matter accounts for 23.3 percent of the cosmos, and Dark Energy accounts for 72.1 percent (to within various percentages). Well, NASA scientists don't actually know that, but they stated it. These are percentages presumably based on the "what if" scenario of if DM and DE are correct explanations. But now, this is public information that may or may not be quite accurate, but it has been presented to the public for all intents and purposes as fact. By NASA.</p><p></p><p>I've seen several "scientific programs" (e.g. Through the Wormhole as one example) where this percentage claim has also been made by people on the show. The public watches the show and many probably considers it fact. Argumentum ad verecundiam is very compelling in our society.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Look at quantum mechanics. All of our evidence for how quarks and other elementary particles work comes from one source. Smashing particles together at high speed. In any other branch of science, having only one basic type of experiment for your theories without other observations or experiments to verify against would be considered shoddy science. But, we have no other way yet to peer into protons, neutrons, and electrons, so science uses what it has. Does it make it correct? Maybe. Maybe not. It's pretty much considered fact in the scientific community and at this point in time, rightfully so. But, there's a fair chance that it is wrong. As Feynman once stated "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" (granted, he said that over 45 years ago, but it still pretty much holds, we have more knowledge, but it's still a big mystery).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 6041608, member: 2011"] The point I was trying to make is that only RECENTLY has there been more interest in non-Dark Matter theories. They have been around for about 30 years out of the 40 years that scientists have been actively trying to pursue DM, but mainstream scientists have called them radical theories for decades. Now, not so radical as more and more scientists are slowly starting to examine them more carefully. Part of the reason for this is lack of results for DM. Part of the reason for this might be because as more elderly / well known scientists who were a bit more rigid in their thinking that DM was the only possible answer have moved on (retired, died, etc.), similar to what happened with the few holdouts of the Static State theory. Yes, some scientists are slowly getting around to being open minded on this, but for several decades, not so much. Here is just one example of where your claim to open mindedness by scientists doesn't hold much water if it takes three or four decades for them to consider other explanations as maybe not so radical after all. And, many scientists still will not consider anything other than DM. To be considered open minded, one should examine different possibilities, not just pick the most popular one and stick to it. This might be what you were not following from what I posted. This is an example of resistance to other ideas that has been happening for decades (since the birth of science actually since science is done by people). It disagrees completely with your claim of how most scientists function. I'm not enamored by any specific theory. I was using this as an example. DM is just one of several different theories that didn't seem to have evidence to support it. It never has. Galaxies have observational effects which it tries to fill the hole for, but no evidence. The observations are real (or at least as real as our tools allow us to observe). The theory, maybe, maybe not. And, I don't know if it is Mond or Electromagnetic attraction or something else. All I know is the DM might not be the answer based on what some scientists are now saying. I take what I understand from them. I don't have an agenda (other than discussing it). It's like Dark Energy. Scientists can state the observational effects that they use it to try to explain, but an explanation for what causes it is still pie in the sky. Until they can explain exactly what it is and what is causing it and they have evidence to illustrate this, there is a fair chance that it might be an incorrect theory. When one comes up with a theory for science, one has to do experimentation to support or disprove the theory. In both cases here, there is an effect (galaxy rotational speed/lensing and apparent acceleration of universal expansion). But, the explanations for why these are occurring have no real teeth. There is DM. What is it? Don't actually know. There is DE. What is it? Don't actually know. Scientists have tried to come up with the actual answers, but so far, zip, zilch, nada. Some theories. Few real answers. As an example, NASA scientists have stated that Dark Matter accounts for 23.3 percent of the cosmos, and Dark Energy accounts for 72.1 percent (to within various percentages). Well, NASA scientists don't actually know that, but they stated it. These are percentages presumably based on the "what if" scenario of if DM and DE are correct explanations. But now, this is public information that may or may not be quite accurate, but it has been presented to the public for all intents and purposes as fact. By NASA. I've seen several "scientific programs" (e.g. Through the Wormhole as one example) where this percentage claim has also been made by people on the show. The public watches the show and many probably considers it fact. Argumentum ad verecundiam is very compelling in our society. Look at quantum mechanics. All of our evidence for how quarks and other elementary particles work comes from one source. Smashing particles together at high speed. In any other branch of science, having only one basic type of experiment for your theories without other observations or experiments to verify against would be considered shoddy science. But, we have no other way yet to peer into protons, neutrons, and electrons, so science uses what it has. Does it make it correct? Maybe. Maybe not. It's pretty much considered fact in the scientific community and at this point in time, rightfully so. But, there's a fair chance that it is wrong. As Feynman once stated "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" (granted, he said that over 45 years ago, but it still pretty much holds, we have more knowledge, but it's still a big mystery). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
Top