The myths of physics

[voiceofwood]

Standard model predicts

1. Non uniform heat distribution but heat distribution is very uniform
ad hoc modification, inflation - no proof, no explination of cause

2. Stars in galaxies outer orbit should have less velocity, but don't
ad hoc modification, dark matter - no proof, no explination. 5kg of dark matter for 1kg of regular matter

3. Universe should slow expansion but is increasing its rate
ad hoc modification, dark enegry, no proof, no explination

4. Dark flow? Ad hoc modification, greater universe, no evidence

Some scientists are true believers!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Is it relevant why standard model looks like it does? Is a model only workable if we understand everything there is to understand about the universe?

 

[voiceofwood]

Is it relevant why standard model looks like it does? Is a model only workable if we understand everything there is to understand about the universe?

That we don't understand everything about it is not really the point. rather it is that itmes such as dark energy/matter etc. are ad hoc modifications that render the theory (Strictly speaking it is a hypothesis not a theory) non-scientific

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

If a model works in all testable ways, then it's a working model.

 

[voiceofwood]

If a model works in all testable ways, then it's a working model.

That is exactly the problem, the model doesn't work except with the invention of dark matter/energy which are untestable and undetectable. It also makes predictions that appear contrary to obesrvation

 

[voiceofwood]

Usually in physics a hypothesis is proposed and tested, to see if it can be falsified. When the standard model was falsified by observation instead of abandoning it, ad hoc inventions of dark energy/matter were invented which cannot be detected. They are like an invisible dwarf with boots on as an explanation of creaking noises, at night, in an old house

 

[Gordian Knot]

Voice I can see we are going to have fun time sparring each other. And I do mean that in good faith!

You are correct that all the hypothesis you pointed out can not be proven nor disproven at this time. Your conclusion though is wrong. What you fail to recognize is that no scientist believes any of these, essentially guesses, are true. Or are to be taken on faith.

They are suggestions as to why the universe is working in ways we didn't expect it to. These hypothesis will be tested over time to see if they are correct guesses or incorrect guesses.

If they end up being the latter, that hypothesis is dropped. If over time they find evidence that it is true, and it can be independently proven by other scientists, it becomes a theory. And even then it is not proof positive, nor taken on faith.

Some of the most sacred of theories over the years have had to be dropped because, even though we thought we had the right answers, perhaps for decades, when new evidence comes along that proves everything we thought we knew was wrong, the theory dies.

Faith plays no part in the scientific method.

One final note. Not everyone has abandoned the standard model. It is out of favor at the moment but it still has its proponents. And like every other scientist they will attempt to find proof or accept that there is no longer adequate proof for the standard model.

Science constantly evolves. Nothing is taken as doctrine. A theory that has been proven remains proven until & unless it is disproven.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some scientists are true believers!

It's called inference to best explanation. Get over it.

 

[voiceofwood]

Voice I can see we are going to have fun time sparring each other. And I do mean that in good faith!

Good

You are correct that all the hypothesis you pointed out can not be proven nor disproven at this time. Your conclusion though is wrong. What you fail to recognize is that no scientist believes any of these, essentially guesses, are true. Or are to be taken on faith.

Yes, I agree, that is how science should work

They are suggestions as to why the universe is working in ways we didn't expect it to. These hypothesis will be tested over time to see if they are correct guesses or incorrect guesses.

If they end up being the latter, that hypothesis is dropped. If over time they find evidence that it is true, and it can be independently proven by other scientists, it becomes a theory. And even then it is not proof positive, nor taken on faith.

Some of the most sacred of theories over the years have had to be dropped because, even though we thought we had the right answers, perhaps for decades, when new evidence comes along that proves everything we thought we knew was wrong, the theory dies.

The point is that when the hypothesis was tested it failed.

Faith plays no part in the scientific method.

One final note. Not everyone has abandoned the standard model. It is out of favor at the moment but it still has its proponents. And like every other scientist they will attempt to find proof or accept that there is no longer adequate proof for the standard model.

Science constantly evolves. Nothing is taken as doctrine. A theory that has been proven remains proven until & unless it is disproven.

Imagine if the theory of Gravity failed and instead of accepting it as wrong, someone suggested the existence of Dark Elves, who could not be detected but lifted objects up to stop them falling. Scientists devout resources to detecting Dark Elves to no avail, instead of admitting they don't exist they go into denial, positing arcane properties to the Dark Elves that prevent their detection

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Imagine if the theory of Gravity failed and instead of accepting it as wrong, someone suggested the existence of Dark Elves, who could not be detected but lifted objects up to stop them falling. Scientists devout resources to detecting Dark Elves to no avail, instead of admitting they don't exist they go into denial, positing arcane properties to the Dark Elves that prevent their detection

This makes me think you're not very familiar with the natural sciences. Do you feel you are?

 

[voiceofwood]

It's called inference to best explanation. Get over it.

No, it is not. Inventing invisible dark elves to explain when gravity does not work is not inference to the best explanation and dark mater/energy is also not the best explanation

 

[voiceofwood]

This makes me think you're not very familiar with the natural sciences. Do you feel you are?

Yes, having studied them

But please refrain from arguments ad hominem

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

But please refrain from arguments ad hominem

It's just that you're arguments are all over the place, I don't know where to start. This is not a personal attack I just feel that if you're familiar with the scientific method and have an idea what the models you were talking about are based on, then going to imaginary elves is...I don't know actually. Isn't it more direct to start with why 'Non uniform heat distribution but heat distribution is very uniform?

 

[wil]

actual science is valuable when discussing science.

 

[voiceofwood]

It's just that you're arguments are all over the place, I don't know where to start. This is not a personal attack I just feel that if you're familiar with the scientific method and have an idea what the models you were talking about are based on, then going to imaginary elves is...I don't know actually. Isn't it more direct to start with why 'Non uniform heat distribution but heat distribution is very uniform?

1. If my arguments are 'all over the place' as you claim then it will of course be easy to refute them
2. I am very familiar with both the scientific method and philosophy of science and it is because I am familiar with it that I able to show that the standard model is not a scientific theory but requires an act of faith
3. The bit elves was an analogy, are you not familiar with this argument form? It is called reducto ad absurdum

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

1. If my arguments are 'all over the place' as you claim then it will of course be easy to refute them
2. I am very familiar with both the scientific method and philosophy of science and it is because I am familiar with it that I able to show that the standard model is not a scientific theory but requires an act of faith
3. The bit elves was an analogy, are you not familiar with this argument form? It is called reducto ad absurdum

It's good that GK likes arguing with you, I'll leave him to it.

 

[voiceofwood]

Opps, posted my notes instead of the proper version

There is a theory, called the cosmological standard model, this mathematical theory attempts to

explain the origin of the universe from the first moments of the big bang

The maths predicts

1. 1. Non uniform heat distribution

However heat distribution throughout the universe is very uniform in order to account for this

counter-factual observation an ad hoc modification of the theory was developed, inflation, this

suggested that initially the universe expanded slowly till the heat became uniform after which it

underwent a period of immense and rapid inflation however there is no strong evidence of such

inflation nor a theoretical explanation why it should have occurred

2. Stars velocity should decrease the farther out their orbit is from galactic central point,

however, stars retain almost uniform velocity regardless of orbital radius. To accommodate

this scientists postulated the existence of dark matter, a convenient neo-mystical substance

that contributes to the mass of the universe but does not interact with matter in any other way.

Not only that but in order to make the model work for every kg of real matter there must be

5kg of mystical or dark matter. Despite over 5 years of experiments attempting to establish the

existence of dark matter none has been detected. Nor is there any theoretical understanding of

what such matter could consist of

3. Universe should slow expansion but is increasing its rate of expansion, to accommodate this,

laughably, scientists have evoked another fanciful explanation: Dark energy, and again there

is no experimental evidence or theoretical understanding of what such energy might be for this

further irrational and ad hoc postulation.

4. Finally, galaxies have been observed moving in a manner that the Standard Model rules out,

the scientists explanation? Dark Flow necessitating the idea of a universe outside the universe

Now you may be able to still believe the cosmologists explanation for the origin of the universe

but not without a huge leap of faith, you true believers!

Clearly, time for a paradigm shift!

 

[Gordian Knot]

I do understand where you are coming from. Even agree with you up to a point. One of the things that bothers me about modern cosmology is that scientists are too quick to accept a possibility just because the math says it works.

Personally the hypothesis of Dark Matter and Dark Energy aggravates me. For the very reasons you describe. We have to make up invisible substances to explain why the universe works the way it does? And that as a result we can now only perceive 10% of the entire bulk of the universe? Seems rather absurd to my way of thinking But as someone with a scientific mind I cannot dismiss the idea simply because I don't like it.

If we can find a way to test for its existence, it will turn out either that the hypothesis is right. Or that it is wrong. They have not found any way to prove it exists yet, as you stated. But five years is a pitifully short time; way too soon to say for certain that the theory has failed.

The point you are misinterpreting is that you believe that scientists are stubbornly insisting that Dark Matter is the only solution. But since we can't prove it yet we will just accept it on faith that it is there.

That simply is not the way science works. We accept the proposal that DM might be a solution. But no scientist worth his creds would suggest that it is THE solution until and unless it can be proven to exist.

It is really no different than many, many invisible fields science has posited over the years. Gravity. Sound waves. Radiation. Etc. These started out as hypothesis to explain why things happened the way they did. Someone, for example, said 'the reason people are getting sick from atomic weapon exposure is that there is this invisible force'. Turned out they were right on that one.

Plenty of times someone had ideas that were wrong. Nothing is accepted at face value. Everything must stand the test of the scientific method. Faith has nothing to do with it.

 

[voiceofwood]

It is not really that, rather that I think that dark mattrer/energy smack too much or those invisible dwarves.

We need more matter to make the maths work

Ok, what if there were more matter that we could not see

Well let's see if we can detect it

Ok, we can't detect it, perhaps it has some arcane properties that prevent it from being detected

We'll build better detectors

We still can't detect it

Perhaps it has even odder properties

Hmmmm, doesn't really sound much like matter, it must have gravity to make the maths work we should be able to detect the effect of that

 

[Gordian Knot]

Dwarves?!? Last time you said it was Elves. Make up your mind. Cause, as you well know Dark Dwarves would be a whole nuther ball of wax as opposed to Dark Elves.

Okay getting serious for a moment. Your response pretty much ignores everything I said about the scientific method, which was my argument against your claim that there is any faith involved.