Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6641464" data-attributes="member: 177">Any halfway decent scientist knows that taking a measurement is really taking a sample.&nbsp; It is thus subject to potential sampling error.&nbsp; Scientists need to be honest with themselves about when they might be introducing such errors.Dark Matter arose as a theory thusly:&nbsp; We looked at distant galaxies, estimated their masses, and realized that their motion was not consistent with their masses.&nbsp; By a *long* shot.The models of motion in question were based on Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity - a couple of theories whose areas of validity are very well known, tested, and verified.&nbsp; It is&nbsp; difficult to arrange a correction to these that would allow for the galactic motion observed that didn't bollix up other times when they have been proven to work quite well.&nbsp; There are some that do so, but to me they sort of cherry pick how they are applied, and lead to an inelegant solution.Or, we could just realize that we might not be estimating how much matter was in these galaxies properly.&nbsp; How could that estimate be off?&nbsp; Well, for one thing, our estimate only included mass that we could *see* - that glowed brightly enough to be seen over these extreme distances.&nbsp; What's more likely?&nbsp; That Newton and Einstein need to be completely thrown out, or that maybe there's just&nbsp; mass out there that doesn't glow brightly?It isn't like that was a lightweight question at the time, by the way.&nbsp; It was a major point of contention.&nbsp; It was hashed over a *lot*.&nbsp; It really only clarified when it was shown that the presence of dark matter implied some things about microwave background radiation... and that measurements were consistent with the presence of this mass, and not consistent with it's absence.&nbsp; So, the presence of dark matter has been put through the usual wringer, requiring a new theory to make a prediction we can test.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6641464, member: 177"] Any halfway decent scientist knows that taking a measurement is really taking a sample. It is thus subject to potential sampling error. Scientists need to be honest with themselves about when they might be introducing such errors. Dark Matter arose as a theory thusly: We looked at distant galaxies, estimated their masses, and realized that their motion was not consistent with their masses. By a *long* shot. The models of motion in question were based on Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity - a couple of theories whose areas of validity are very well known, tested, and verified. It is difficult to arrange a correction to these that would allow for the galactic motion observed that didn't bollix up other times when they have been proven to work quite well. There are some that do so, but to me they sort of cherry pick how they are applied, and lead to an inelegant solution. Or, we could just realize that we might not be estimating how much matter was in these galaxies properly. How could that estimate be off? Well, for one thing, our estimate only included mass that we could *see* - that glowed brightly enough to be seen over these extreme distances. What's more likely? That Newton and Einstein need to be completely thrown out, or that maybe there's just mass out there that doesn't glow brightly? It isn't like that was a lightweight question at the time, by the way. It was a major point of contention. It was hashed over a *lot*. It really only clarified when it was shown that the presence of dark matter implied some things about microwave background radiation... and that measurements were consistent with the presence of this mass, and not consistent with it's absence. So, the presence of dark matter has been put through the usual wringer, requiring a new theory to make a prediction we can test. [/QUOTE]

Verification