11–20 of 30 posts
Given that most cosmology relies on a huge percentage of dark matter, which cannot be detected, and a huge amount of dark energy, with enormous conflicting calculations, I think it's fair to say that astronomers are wrong about a lot of things.
Given that most cosmology relies on a huge percentage of dark matter, which cannot be detected, and a huge amount of dark energy, with enormous conflicting calculations, I think it's fair to say that astronomers are wrong about a lot of things.
Given that most cosmology relies on a huge percentage of dark matter, which cannot be detected, and a huge amount of dark energy, with enormous conflicting calculations, I think it's fair to say that astronomers are wrong about a lot of things.
Just because you cannot detect something does not make you wrong nor does it mean it doesn't exist. What a ridiculous statement.
Huh. I thought that there was a solid theoretical basis for the density wave hypothesis. But TFA implies that the main constraint was consistency with the Hubble tuning fork diagram. That would be funny, because I've never really understood the density wave hypothesis.
Given that most cosmology relies on a huge percentage of dark matter, which cannot be detected, and a huge amount of dark energy, with enormous conflicting calculations, I think it's fair to say that astronomers are wrong about a lot of things.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existe... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid...
People really seem to be having trouble with the fact that dark matter and dark energy are 'placeholder terms' to account for stuff we're actually seeing. With future discoveries in science the terms will be replaced, superseded or perhaps disappear. But observation or 'detection' of both dark matter and dark energy is in fact there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you cannot detect something does not make you wrong nor does it mean it doesn't exist. What a ridiculous statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you cannot detect something does not make you wrong nor does it mean it doesn't exist. What a ridiculous statement.
> Just because you cannot detect something does not make you wrong nor does it mean it doesn't exist. What a ridiculous statement. If you cannot detect something, it's can be equally ridiculous to say it exists.
Was it ridiculous to say those might exist?
I think that [1] is the paper that this is based on. I don't work on dynamics and I found it pretty readable. Most of what is in the article is in sections 3.2, section 4 (discussion) and section 5 (conclusions). [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11436.pdf
Sure it is, it is linked in this sentence of the article:
“Now, though, new observations have thrown a monkey in the wrench with all this. Those galaxies aren't the exception. They're the rule.”
The other relevant link is:
https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/research-highlights/citizen...
Given that most cosmology relies on a huge percentage of dark matter, which cannot be detected, and a huge amount of dark energy, with enormous conflicting calculations, I think it's fair to say that astronomers are wrong about a lot of things.
You seem to be having a weird definition of 'detect'. The only reason the concepts dark matter and dark energy are on the table in the first place is that we seem to be detecting a lot of both. You might not like that scientists can't really explain what it is that's being detected, but for sure it's being detected. There's pretty good summaries of how dark energy and dark matter are being detected on Wikipedia [1][2…
Placeholder is the correct term but people tend to leap from "matter" and "energy" to "stuff" (I'm assuming you didn't intend the implication) without understanding those terms (dark matter and dark energy) are preliminary - if well informed - guesses.