11–20 of 25 posts
Excellent! Dark matter is a kludge, the modern "ether". It's clear that we are missing something - maybe this is it...
Yeah we should stop calling it dark matter and call it “missing matter” or “the unexplained matter issue” or something that is more obviously a placeholder.
Excellent! Dark matter is a kludge, the modern "ether". It's clear that we are missing something - maybe this is it...
Phlogiston, C-field... the list of such "placeholders" is pretty long.
Reality is more complicated than slogans would suggest. Sometimes adding new types of matter to our understanding of physics was the right choice, sometimes it wasn't.
Excellent! Dark matter is a kludge, the modern "ether". It's clear that we are missing something - maybe this is it...
Phlogiston, C-field... the list of such "placeholders" is pretty long.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversia...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah we should stop calling it dark matter and call it “missing matter” or “the unexplained matter issue” or something that is more obviously a placeholder.
Why should the academic community care about your opinion? Dark is a very accurate term
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the academic community care about your opinion? Dark is a very accurate term
Not really. "Transparent matter" would be better.
Dark implies the unknown. The Dark Ages weren’t literally dark, we just don’t have a lot of written sources from the era.
Transparent matter implies a known property about something we don’t know. To the extent dark matter is a problematic term, it’s in the matter but.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. "Transparent matter" would be better.
> "Transparent matter" would be better Dark implies the unknown. The Dark Ages weren’t literally dark, we just don’t have a lot of written sources from the era. Transparent matter implies a known property about something we don’t know. To the extent dark matter is a problematic term, it’s in the matter but.
Even going with the first one, it's an incomplete description at best. "Dark" matter does not simply fail to emit light; it does not interact with light at all (other than by gravity, and that only bends it slightly, no absorption or emission involved).
Transparent fully captures this.
The overloaded meanings of those words which you are invoking are not relevant to the description of a physical property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the academic community care about your opinion? Dark is a very accurate term
Not really. "Transparent matter" would be better.
cause it's an assumption our "measurements" are representative of the reality of what's actually going on that far away.
we can't verify anything from this distance, so calling it empiricism is a stretch
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phlogiston, C-field... the list of such "placeholders" is pretty long.
Another example might be anomalies in planetary orbits that could be explained by a missing planet.