Gravity Error Detected? (independent.co.uk) 276
jd (Slashdot reader #1,658) writes:
The large scale maps of the universe show something is seriously wrong with current models of gravity and dark matter. The universe simply isn't clumping right and, no, it's not the new improved formula. As you go from the early universe to the present day, gravity should cause things to clump in specific ways.
It isn't. Which means dark matter can't be cold and general relativity may have a problem.
They need more data to prove it's not just a freaky part of the universe they're looking at, which is being collected.
"The new results come from the Kilo-Degree Survey, or KiDS, which uses the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope to map the distribution of matter across our universe," according to the Independent: So far, it has charted roughly 5% of the extragalactic sky, from an analysis of 31 million galaxies that are as much as 10 billion light years away... That allows researchers to build up a picture of all matter in the universe, of which some 90 per cent is invisible, made up of dark matter and tenuous gas.
It isn't. Which means dark matter can't be cold and general relativity may have a problem.
They need more data to prove it's not just a freaky part of the universe they're looking at, which is being collected.
"The new results come from the Kilo-Degree Survey, or KiDS, which uses the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope to map the distribution of matter across our universe," according to the Independent: So far, it has charted roughly 5% of the extragalactic sky, from an analysis of 31 million galaxies that are as much as 10 billion light years away... That allows researchers to build up a picture of all matter in the universe, of which some 90 per cent is invisible, made up of dark matter and tenuous gas.
No Dark Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
I've long believed that there is no such thing as dark matter. Yes, the mathematics of the current models show that it must be there, but I prefer the other option that we're missing something fundamental in the current models. This latest information suggests that I might be right.
Of course, I'm not a physicist, and I appreciate scientists exploring all the options, including new theories as well as finding ways of detecting dark matter.
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
I've long believed that there is no such thing as dark matter. Yes, the mathematics of the current models show that it must be there, but I prefer the other option that we're missing something fundamental in the current models. This latest information suggests that I might be right.
Of course, I'm not a physicist, and I appreciate scientists exploring all the options, including new theories as well as finding ways of detecting dark matter.
IAAP, although I am not an expert in dark matter/energy.
I have wondered the same thing as you. However, scientists tend towards parsimony when they try to explain new phenomena. In other words, they apply Occam's Razor. Proposing an unseen dark matter/energy model is the current simplest explanation for observations. If this new observation demands the model be revised, well then, to borrow Arthur Eddington's words, so much the worse for dark matter/energy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree in that I think Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is that we haven't figured out the model correctly, especially given our failures to detect, explain, or define dark matter (though it may be that I've missed some of that). However, it's one thing to say that our current model is wrong, and it's a whole nother thing to define a new model with working mathematics that explains everything we've observed without requiring dark matter. So until someone comes up with a better model, the
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding of dark matter is that it may be undetectable, even in principle, except by its gravitational effects
and we can detect evidence of those gravitational effects. That sounds like a pretty good indirect detection. We detect other things by their effects on other forces, like light (electromagnetic forces)
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
We can detect evidence of those gravitational effects if and only if our current model of gravity is correct. That's the point that's being made here. If our current model of gravity is incomplete, than we need to go back and recalculate a whole lot of stuff, and that may or may not exclude dark matter.
It's only a pretty good indirect detection if the model is correct, and we don't know that for sure.
There's a nice bit of evidence that it is incomplete: The lack of connection between relativity and quantum. One would expect that two models of the physics of the universe with solid observational confirmation wouldn't be incompatible, and yet they are. That suggests to me that at least one of them is incomplete, and of the two, quantum effects are the only ones we can really experiment on. That makes me instantly suspicious of relativity, because we can't easily do experiments on it.
IWAPALTA
Re: (Score:3)
It is not evidence that it's matter.
Define "matter". Seriously. If you have something that is present with varying denities in different part of space, moving at less than lightspeed and interacting through gravity, what else do you need to call it "matter"?
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:4, Interesting)
That would be because scientists have no idea what dark matter is so far as I'm aware. As a layman dark matter just looks like scientists fudging the numbers because gravity doesn't seem to be working right on larger scales.
Dark matter strikes me as being the modern Aether, a stop gap until something better comes along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Dark matter strikes me as being the modern Aether, a stop gap until something better comes along.
Or it could be the modern neutrino, fixing serious problems with physics theory, but undetectable for decades after it was proposed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was no standard model in 1930, when Pauli proposed the neutrino, and in fact there were only two known particles (proton and electron). There were a lot more particles by 1956 when it was detected, but still no standard model.
we know what it is, how it is made, how it interacts, how to look for it.
We didn't know these things in 1930, so if Slashdot had existed at the time there might have been "strikes me as being the modern Aether" posts.
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:5, Informative)
Aether wasn't a stopgap, it was based on serious reasoning and made perfect sense in its time. Waves need a medium to move in and light has the properties of waves.
When instruments got sensitive enough to measure the Aether, the results disagreed with theory. After a bunch of re-measurements and double checking, science moved on. That's how science works.
The neutrino, a type of dark matter, was a fix to make some equations work. Eventually they were detected though we're still learning about them.
A lot of people also get confused by the term "dark", which can mean unknown. Darkest Africa, the dark side of the Moon, dark matter, all unknowns at the time the terms were invented.
Re: (Score:3)
Aether didn't disappear. It just got renamed to Quantum Field Theory.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that space is filled with QFT and that's the medium that EM waves propagate through.
You were successfully executing a point, but botched the landing.
Re: (Score:3)
Was there actual science behind burning witches? In the early 19th century, sound had been found to be waves traveling through a medium, waves were being studied, interference patterns and such and the idea that light, with its properties, was a wave, which, at the time, seemed to need a medium to propagate in, made sense as a hypothesis. As a good hypothesis, the Aether theory made predictions, which needed better instruments to test and when tested, the hypothesis was found wanting and thrown out.
Re: (Score:3)
The word "dark" is exactly correct and appropriate. It is dark because it doesn't interact with light: normal matter (the electrons and protons) that make up the visible matter not only interacts with light, but most of it actually glows, to some degree or another (the stuff in stars with visible light, nebulaes in radio waves, the whole universe in the cosmic microwave background, etc.) Dark matter is different because it doesn't glow. That is the entire meaning of the term: that we can see (through gravit
Re: (Score:2)
Phlogiston, Ether, Dark Matter
What they have in common is that nobody detected any of them, but they are/were all convenient excuses.
"Magic happens here" is not a hypothesis.
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Phlogiston and the ether were neither "convenient excuses" nor "magic" in their time. They were reasonable conclusions given the knowledge in their day.
Phlogiston seemed a reasonable explanation for the way fire behaved -- as though something was "coming out" of the fuel. But it was disproved after careful experiments showed that burning something caused it to get heavier, not lighter.
The ether seemed a reasonable explanation for the observed behavior of non-EM waves requiring a medium to propagate. It was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Science does not move in a stately fashion from one truth to another. It is messy. It progresses by making assumptions that seem to fit observations, and then testing them further. Even wrong assumptions can be useful, because they identify something that can be tested.
Dark matter may very well go the way of phlogiston and the ether. But for now, it's a useful assumption, not a convenient excuse or magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I mangled the ether part. Here's the correction:
The ether seemed a reasonable explanation for the observed behavior of EM waves, because non-EM waves required a medium to propagate.
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Ether was indirectly detected, it was the medium that light waves traveled in at a time when all waves had been observed moving through a medium, and light had the properties of a wave. Made perfect sense in early 19th century physics.
Note that when the instruments became sensitive enough to directly measure the ether and it was found not to be there, after a bunch of double checking, science moved on.
The first type of dark matter was postulated to balance an equation. After a few decades, it was detected and became known matter instead of unknown (dark) matter. Originally called the neutron, as was considered so neutral to be close to undetectable, it eventually was renamed to the neutrino (little neutron) as a different particle had been postulated then found and given the name neutron.
The positron was another example of a particle existing as an equation, or magic as you say. Eventually one was detected.
Science, you make predictions, sometimes they come true, and sometimes they don't and you go back to the drawing board. Many of the predictions of dark matter have been detected, others need better instruments.
Re: (Score:3)
An all powerful Supreme Being is making a big assumption. You'd need to prove that some all powerful Supreme Being is possible to exist.
Because the idea of Dark Matter is only that it's unseeable through electromagnetic detection hence the dark, but it's not undetectable. It's still supposed to interact with regular matter (and perhaps also space time?) through gravitation. In that regard it is just like regular matter, which we think we know pretty sur
Re: (Score:2)
However there is no requirement to prove a something to propose it such an idea is totally unscientific. If you have heard of the idea of the multiverse (theory) this is totally unprovable because one
Re: (Score:3)
what caused the big bang?[sic]
Maybe the same that caused the gods to appear?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we need to prove Dark Matter exists.
We haven't proven its existence so far, which means it's an unknown or unexplained. But the assumption that there could be such a thing that has this and that effect while we can't exactly see it through conventional means, isn't unscientific.
Take the magnetic field as an example. It does not interact with light either in most situations. It can rotate the polarization though (Faraday rotation). But since we humans do
Re: (Score:2)
You have to postulate where the Supreme Being came from. Guess it could be Supreme beings all the way down.
And dark has the meaning of unknown. Darkest Africa, the Dark side of the Moon weren't references to absence of light.
Re: (Score:2)
One unknown vs another unknown
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:3)
That is the thing: We never really said there is.
We just observed something in the universe, that does not match our current models. And we gave that a name. "Dark matter".
We know almost nothing else about it. None of our measurements up to now detected it. Which interestingly already tells us a lot about its properties. As in: How it does not interact.
But it might not be matter at all. Even by the generic quantum field theory definition, where every type of "particle" is just a wavefunction in an all-encom
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:5, Informative)
We know almost nothing else about it. None of our measurements up to now detected it.
That's just not true. We haven't made a dark matter particle in the LHC (or, very likely, we make them constantly and can't detect them), or found one in early experiments that are basically repurposed neutrino observatories. But there's a world of difference between detecting a specific dark matter particle, and detecting dark matter,
There are 3 sets of evidence for dark matter, and the last isn't usually discussed because it's technical, but it's the most direct and important:
* Galaxy rotation rates (there were a great many theories for this early on)
* Galaxy-sized masses causing gravitational lensing where there's no galaxy (rules out modified gravity theories at the galaxy scale),
* Matter ratios detected in the WMAP CMBR data [wikipedia.org]
That curve in the top half of that link, the anisotropy curve, tells us all sorts of things about the universe when it was about 300k years old. The curve is famous, because the first 2 peaks exactly matched predictions. Thinkgeek used to sell "Science Works, Bitches" shirts with that curve on it. But the 3rd and 4th peaks were somewhat new data.
Why does that matter? It tells us through direct observation the ratio familiar matter to cold dark matter in the universe. And guess what - it's exactly the ratio to explain galaxy rotation rates. That's pretty much the end of other explanations for dark matter. It can't be neutrinos, or black holes, or modified gravity. Cold dark matter directly confirmed by measurements with multiple significant figures.
And that in turn tells us a bit more about dark matter beyond "cold" (which just means "moves much slower than light"). It tells us that dark matter doesn't clump. There's no sort of "dark electron" or "dark photon" that can cause friction or otherwise radiate energy away from a collision, even in a form we can't see. We know this because that would give dark matter in galaxies the same sorts of shapes as regular matter, which is known not to be the case.
We also know it doesn't interact via the strong force, or we'd have found it by now (not that that was theorized, but you never know until you look). Evidence is growing against it interacting via the weak force, unless the particle mass is many orders or magnitude away from protons and electron, e.g. axions are still viable.
We just don't know its quantum mechanical properties. We know rather a lot about its properties at the scale of cosmology. The data in TFS is an interesting twist on dark energy, which is a whole different topic, and while minor even at the scale of galaxies is the most powerful thing happening at the scale of the visible universe. It's still very early days for dark energy, but we do know quite a bit about dark matter.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it tells us that IF we have got gravity right, then an additional explanation can match the curve (with another additional explanation to fuzz out the errors, dark energy). We should be starting from nothing and working forward.
While dark matter and energy may indeed be the answer, they are certainly not proven, or even conclusive. Presenting them as "the answer" rather than "the current best answer that still has issues" is problematic. Keeping Dark Matter as the only solution slows research for other
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You and me both. The addition of dark matter and energy reeks of the same kind of thought that gave us the "cosmological constant."
"Hey Einstein, what does this number here do?"
"It keeps the universe from expanding."
Looks a lot like:
"Hey Fritz and Vera, whats does this dark stuff do?"
"It keeps the galaxies from expanding."
Not that these things are equivalent, galaxies expanding is the opposite of what we observe, and the universe expanding is what we observe. That said, what is behind each pronouncement i
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:5, Informative)
I see you don't understand dark matter or dark energy. Think of them as placeholders. Whatever we measure those placeholders must have in order for the universe to conform to a theory and observations means nothing more than that...and nothing less. They could have called them green eggs and ham for all the difference it makes. But people like you fixate on the names as though the names were somehow predicting what the phenomenon actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to me like how the neutrino came about. Hey, we need a magical particle to make this equation describing fusion to explain how the Sun shines balance. We'll call it the neutron as it is a neutral particle that might be undetectable.
Decades later, after the name was used for another magical particle, the neutrino was detected.
The positron was another magical particle that made some equations balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you only look at the successes. Precedence doesn't mean it is correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we know we are missing something fundamental in the current models: No Quantum-Gravity. An inconsistent theory can, of course, have numerous other flaws. The only thing we have which is (probably) reliable are the observations. The rest is broken at this time.
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:4, Informative)
but I prefer the other option that we're missing something fundamental in the current models, but I prefer the other option that we're missing something fundamental in the current models.
Thats literally all "dark matter" and "dark energy" is. Placeholders in the math that say "Somethings missing in our model which we dont understand yet".
Of course there are theories some more popular than others as to what that missing thing is. Thats whats being refered to here, evidence that the most popular theory, a massive particle that doesnt interact with most forces except gravity, might well be wrong, but that doesnt "disprove" dark matter, it just narrows down the possibilities as to what that question mark actually refers to.
You *DO* believe in Dark Matter, you just didnt know what "Dark Matter" refers to. Now you do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've long believed that there is no such thing as dark matter.
Cool. On what grounds, precisely? How do you explain the great many observations without gravitating matter which [at least so far] eludes direct observation?
Yes, the mathematics of the current models show that it must be there
Indeed.
I prefer the other option that we're missing something fundamental in the current models.
That's fine. People are entitled to their opinions. That said, what would that fundamental thing be? And how would it explain the observations? Do you have a falsifiable model, which fits the observations yet provide an alternative explanation compared to the current models?
This latest information suggests that I might be right.
Highly unlikely, unless you have an advanced physics degree of relevance
Re: (Score:2)
Well have you ever seen any?
Re: (Score:2)
I've long believed that there is no such thing as dark matter. Yes, the mathematics of the current models show that it must be there, but I prefer the other option that we're missing something fundamental in the current models.
Yes, many assumptions are being made that may be proved false. Right now there are many assumed "constants" that we use to define that the behavior of the universe but they may be less constant than we believe.
Then we have bigger questions like: What is gravity? If we can get a better grasp on gravity then we may find that it can be altered.
We must test all the possibilities we can so that we can fill in more missing gaps in our knowledge to discover the true nature of dark matter. It could simply be a m
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's the effect of gravity. Cause and effect are two very different things.
Negative. That's the whole point of General Relativity. To define what gravity is.
It is the curvature of spacetime.
Gravity is not a force- it's a consequence of said curvature.
Sounds weird, I know, but the math checks out in every instance we have ever been able to observe or test.
Elevator ride at Fermilab (Score:3)
The Administration Building at Fermilab is open to visitors, and I was riding the elevator to the observation level where you can see the extent of the Tevatron and the Fermilab grounds. The signs around the Lab telling what they do for the benefit of us tourists explained that the Tevatron has been retired but that the Lab was conducting experiments on Dark Matter.
With family members in the elevator, in a Homer Simpson as a scientifically naive tourist voice, I told them, "I really don't believe in all
Re: (Score:2)
We've already found one type of "dark" matter, they're called neutrinos and were postulated to make some equations balance, and as we now know about them, they're no longer "dark". Dark can mean unknown, the dark side of the Moon meant the unknown side of the Moon until we launched a space craft to look at it and now it is the far side of the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
I've long believed that there is no such thing as dark matter.
If not dark matter, what do you think of the RelMOND [theatlantic.com] theory then?
Re: (Score:2)
But you brought math into it, so I have an excuse to ask my latest crazy math question.
There are almost no leptons in the interstellar vacuum. Even fewer in the intergalactic vacuum. But there are lots of photons in every cubic centimeter. The photons have energy, but I can't find out what is the rest mass equivalent to the energy of the photons in the vacuum. Or is the big question why that mass equivalent doesn't matter?
Is there a doctor of astrophysics in the house?
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a doctor of astrophysics in the house?
Yep! Way better than when I'm on an airplane and the fight attendants see "Dr." on the ticket and ask me to help some poor passenger. "Not that kind of Dr!", I'm forced to answer.
But you brought math into it, so I have an excuse to ask my latest crazy math question.
There are almost no leptons in the interstellar vacuum. Even fewer in the intergalactic vacuum. But there are lots of photons in every cubic centimeter. The photons have energy, but I can't find out what is the rest mass equivalent to the energy of the photons in the vacuum. Or is the big question why that mass equivalent doesn't matter?
Turns out that the starlight mc^2 equivalent out there in empty space is order of magnitude not so different than the random matter bits in pick your favorite nearly empty cm^3 of space. Throw in the occasional really dense thing like stars, gas clouds or whatnot and the universe is more dominated by matter than by radiation tho
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:3)
So you favour MOND or Emergent Gravity? Both are perfectly good theories, both explain things Dark Matter does not, although neither explain everything Dark Matter does.
They would not be up for debate if physicists were confident they were wrong.
A correction to a model is certainly simpler than adding new particles (you won't have a particle in isolation, it's always in a family, plus twinned with an opposite) but you can have uneven distributions of particles, the model has to be universal.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I think Dark Energy , as an actual energy, is more plausible than dark matter, for a simple reason;- SOMETHING is accelerating expansion, and you cant have acceleration without energy. The distance metric of space cant simply expand without some sort of application of force, thats basic newtonianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic newtonianism, has in many cases been disproved. Perhaps this one may also be wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Dark matter is just the stuff we can't see easily, like dust, and rocks that are not near a light source.
No one is denying that dark matter exists but the current theory is that *ALOT* of it exists. As in there is more dark matter than regular matter. This is what could very well be incorrect.
It's currently needed for certain math to work correctly at large distances but there is possibly something like the speed of gravity, the strength of gravity decaying over long distances, or even our observation over long distances is skewed somehow which may explain what is really happening. Currently though the dark
Re: (Score:2)
Dark just means unknown in this context. The dark side of the Moon doesn't mean the night side, it meant the unobserved side. The neutrino was a form of dark matter for decades until it was detected. Only existed as an equation and was considered very hard to detect as it barely interacted with regular matter.
Re: (Score:3)
(IANAPP, but) dark matter can't be regular matter because the universe is too transparent. If dark matter were made up of baryons we wouldn't be able to see much further than (IIRC) the Local Group of galaxies. Instead we can see over 13 billion light years, to the initial formation of galaxies.
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I've long believed that there is no such thing as dark matter
If you'd said dark energy, instead of dark matter, I'd agree.
Dark matter is just the stuff we can't see easily, like dust, and rocks that are not near a light source.
Here, it is the distribution of the dark matter that is not as predicted.
With dark energy, everything about it is not as predicted. ;)
Nobody asks, "Is our prediction wrong because the hypothesis we used to make it is wrong?" Big Bang is not testable, and instead of recognizing that that means it is a non-scientific idea, people simply suspend their expectation of proof in this one case. Because it would be too hard. And then they banlist anybody who questions the Absolutely Known Facts That Are Not Testable.
"Most dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic in nature; it may be composed of some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles." I'm not an expert in this area, but my understanding is that statement means scientists think dark matter is something fundamentally different from dust and rocks that we just can't see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Science [Re:No Dark Matter] (Score:2)
Testable and repeatable (for us) are not necessarily the same thing. We can test models against observations, and that's still science. Repeatability is a nice bonus, but not a minimum requirement of science.
I don't know anyone who says the Big Bang is gospel. It's simply the CURRENT-best-explanation for various observ
Re: (Score:2)
"God did it" is also NOT a different theory than "the Big Bang happened". It's an entirely reasonable sentence to say "God initiated the Big Bang".
More interesting, to me, is the formulation:
"What is God? God is what caused the Big Bang."
I find that formulation interesting because biblically, when asked who he is, God responded "I am what has always been and will always be", the definition of God is "whatever existed even before the big bang".
* Because English uses on word, "is", for at least six different
Re: (Score:2)
God didn't write anything in the Bible. Man wrote down what they thought he said. I think it a bit odd that God is reputed to have said things way back then but has decidedly sworn off press conferences to keep us informed on the latest Heavenly News. So what's the big problem with God dropping us a line every now and again, just to keep us up to date?
Re: (Score:2)
Good points, though I was thinking more of the one that created the God who created the universe. It's Gods all the way up when you go in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Gitchegumee says that Shiva is just Coyote in disguise.
Re: (Score:2)
> Saying "before the BB"
If you think there was nothing before the big bang, that presumed nothing CAUSED thr big bang. You think the entire universe was created by NOTHING. Gravity wasn't involved, because gravity didn't exist. There waa no triggering event, because there was nothing to trigger it, you assume.
You believe this based on nothing but the fact that you don't know what was beforw the big bang. Since you don't know what it was, you assume it's nothing, and the universe was literally caused
Re: (Score:3)
Time and space and the universe before the big bang because those things, according to the definitions we are using in physics, would not have existed before the big bang. Hence talking about it in terms of physics means either that you're trolling or don't really know what you're talking about.
We assume the latter because of Hanlon's Razor.
Sure you can talk about what was before, but that
Re: No Dark Matter (Score:2)
Re:No Dark Matter (Score:4, Informative)
Dark matter is just the stuff we can't see easily, like dust, and rocks that are not near a light source.
Here, it is the distribution of the dark matter that is not as predicted.
The idea that dark matter is made of baryons (ie ordinary matter like dust and rocks) isn't consistent with CMB observation. The balance between radiation pressure and gravity in the early universe drove pressure waves whose aftermath can still (with some difficulty) be detected. That shows us that about 80% of the gravity came from particles that did *not* experience radiation pressure (ie not baryons).
Re: (Score:3)
You are demonstrably incorrect about Dark Matter.
Things like dust and rocks that are not near a light source are hit by distant light, absorb it, and re-emit light called "Infrared", aka heat. Infrared light is just as easy to detect as visible light. We look for it a lot, along with all other wavelengths on the EM Spectrum.
Moreover, the proof of dark matter is gravity and over the billions of years the universe has existed gravity gathers up the dust and rocks and turns them into things called solar syst
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's not what the scientists are saying, they are saying that dark matter is 'non-baryonic'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I hear you. Those damn physicists with their fancy theories. I bet they just made them up so that geo location services work and Musk can get all enthusiastic over how smart he thinks he is. Sheesh...
Gravity error (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the biggest one was casting Sandra Bullock. But apparently it's even worse than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news: You wind up getting locked up by Kellyanne Conway, who ties you to a chair and makes you watch movies starring Sandra Bullock
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news: You wind up getting locked up by Kellyanne Conway, who ties you to a chair and makes you watch movies starring Sandra Bullock
This is why Slashdot needs a "+1 Mortifying"
They've always existed (Score:4, Funny)
I find gravity errors usually after a dozen beers or so.
Alternative links to avoid ad bombardment (Score:5, Informative)
The universe is nearly 10 percent more homogeneous than expected [techexplorist.com]
Universe Is More Homogeneous Than Expected [spacedaily.com]
New KiDS result: Universe 10 percent more homogeneous than assumed [miragenews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Simple solution; if they ask you to turn off the ad-blocker, don't do it.
Often you can use the ad-blocker's eye-dropper tool to block their anti-blocker overlays. They can't block your blocker by force without blocking accessible browsers, so usually it is a soft-block popup.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I use uMatrix, and I think 100% of the sites that do that use cross-site JS for it, so I don't even get redirected.
Re: (Score:2)
I just read the article and didn't get any notices about my ad blocker. The article loaded and I read it with no fuss at all.
Are you running Javascript on random websites? That's the only reason I can think of offhand for why you would get that notice and all of the crap when I didn't.
INB4 dark apologists. (Score:3)
Let's see how they justify this one. :)
I hope they don't go full string theory.
Never go full string theory.
Itâ(TM)s still just the bubble effect (Score:3)
What they see is clearly just a very slight wobble to our bubble as it continues its ride up the continuum. This is almost certainly due to the population density imbalance across the disc. If we donâ(TM)t fix it soon, we may risk flipping the disc!
Donâ(TM)t worry though, Iâ(TM)m sure our experts are recalibrating the stabilizers at this very moment.
Rigged! (Score:2)
"I toldja it was all rigged! The scientists were wrong wrong wrong! Everybody knows now, believe me! God doesn't play dice with the universe and he doesn't wear a mask. Ever see him in a painting with a mask? Not! I did see him playing cards at Mar-a-Lago; he loved the place! I'll ask him about gravity next time so you don't have to get your fake news from Al Gore and his gravitational warming shtick."
Albert says No (Score:2)
If your theory starts with "Maybe Einstein was wrong" you need a new theory.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean that guy who didn't believe in QM?
He had some great and useful ideas back in the day, don't get me wrong. But appealing to Einstein's infallibility is foolish right on the face of the argument.
Note I said "starts". And he probably wouldn't have had as much trouble with QM if Heisenberg hadn't decided to be a juvenile mystic wanker about the ridiculous "Copenhagen" interpretation.
Re: Albert says No (Score:2)
Remember how systemd and Wayland were great because their authors worked for Redhat, and Redhat knew what they were doing by virtue of being Redhat?
Sure, some of the posters saying that were paid shills. But here's the thing: some of them weren't.
Go with the old fellas (Score:2)
Less likely to make a complete bollocks of it.
A pity more are not still alive.
Gravity error? (Score:2)
Absurd, gravity doesn't make mistakes.
No references! (Score:2)
The linked article doesn't contain any references. It may be correct, or it may be fabrication, and there's no way to tell.
For all I can tell, it's somebody's spin-off on https://www.quantamagazine.org... [quantamagazine.org] though they do cite a different instrument. (KiDS : Kilo-Degree Survey) and one can read into the article that Hendrik Hildebrandt was an astronomer involved with whatever study it is. (This *is* a guess based on the linked article. They quoted him, but they don't say why.)
In related news (Score:2)
Obsessive compulsive wracked professors were seen jumping from high rise buildings.
Dark matter does not exist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, what do you suggest instead? Ignore the discrepancies? Not report it? I am not sure what you are suggesting. Declare the current equations invalid and don't build bridges using Newtonian physics anymore?
Re: stop inventing shit (Score:2)
Re:stop inventing shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Not him, but the solution is obvious: go back to pre-relativity thinking and start over. It's wrong, we know it's wrong, stop trying to transform it into being right and start over.
It is quire rare that science needs to "start over". Usually what happens is that improvements are made to existing theories and laws that extend their validity, but are of little consequence in situations that were explained already by the old theories and laws.
For an insightful treatment of the topic, read Isaac Asimov's famous essay. [tufts.edu]
Re:stop inventing shit (Score:4, Interesting)
It's trivially simple to prove that physical laws are infinite
No, it's not. Otherwise scientists would have done so by now.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure what it means, to be honest.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes how about YOU be the one to do that. I am not joking. Just saying "start over" is a Dark Suggestion. There's entire departments in universities trying to do that too .. they come up with things all the time like MOND .. modified netwonian dynamics. Fact is that ever since basically any scientific theory came out people have been trying to disprove it, predict reality more accurately with different equations etc. It's far easier said that done. The problem is that there is no theory that is able to make
Re: (Score:2)
That's just how science works. Look up 'aether theories'.
Re: stop inventing shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of indirect observations of dark matter.
There are plenty of indirect observations of something that is as yet unexplained.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of indirect observations of something that is as yet unexplained.
Right, and the label that scientists have given to that "something that is as yet unexplained" is ... dark matter.
I don't get the issue you're trying to raise here. You seem to agree that scientists have observed something unusual but you object to calling it "dark matter". It seems a pretty apt term to me given the circumstances. "Dark" just refers to the fact that we can't observe it directly. "matter" is apt because some of the indirect observations show that it can bend light, which is the hallmark of
Re: Trumps fault (Score:3)
You're confusing us with the 80s, doc!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
...The Climate-Change Deniers telling us that "Gravity is just a theory" but the science is settled.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Dear moderators: please note that "gravity is just a theory" and "the science is settled" are phrases that deniers use frequently to mock science. That was my point.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this has happened because Earth is flat so of course the current gravitational models don't work.
Re: (Score:3)
You got modded insightful and while there's a kernel of insight there, you're more wrong than right.
There is an ocean of difference between saying that a model might be wrong but making use of what it does tell you and choosing a wild-ass guess which doesn't even have a model. Something else which isn't observed, and which doesn't confirm to reality and physics.
Right now, saying that climate change doesn't exist does indeed make you a climate change denier. Because to say that you have to throw out a model