/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12478545

44KiB, 463x571, 1608245726151.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 02:58:19 2020 No.12478545 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12478551 >>12478782 >>12478791 >>12478828

How are dark energy and matter any less of an ad hoc (and therefore unscientific) hypothesis than epicycles? Just as the need for epicycles showed there was something fundamentally wrong with the geocentric paradigm, shouldn't the need for extraneous hypothetical substances show there is something fundamentally wrong with the current cosmological paradigm?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 02:59:53 No.12478551 Report

Quoted By: >>12478757

>>12478545
Yes. Here's the flaw in your reasoning:

We don't care.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 04:16:57 No.12478737 Report

Quoted By:

dark energy and matter aren't very related to each other despite the name sounding similar.

the problem with epicycles is that they introduce needless complexity. there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a geocentric paradigm. galilean relativity permits us to construct mechanics from any reference frame.

the most important thing for a physical model is that it be predictive.

why do you even care? you're not a cosmologist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 04:23:10 No.12478757 Report

Quoted By:

>>12478551
I care
Where's your flaw now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 04:24:55 No.12478762 Report

Quoted By:

the daily thread where /sci/ misunderstands dark matter
dark matter and dark energy are not theories. they are not presented as a solution to anything. instead they are open unsolved problems.
the solution could be in any number of realms, from corrections to GR/gravity, to new forces and particles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 04:31:29 No.12478782 Report

Quoted By:

>>12478545
The difference between epicycles and dark matter/energy is that of attitude. Geocentrism was regarded as correct even though you had to tack on the ridiculousness of epicycles to make it work, and when something better came along, it was ignored for unscientific reasons.

Dark matter/energy is us fully admitting that our model of the universe is fucked, somewhere. But since no-one has put forward a workable theory that accounts for it, we keep using the old one, knowing that it's wrong, but less wrong than all the ones before it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 04:37:05 No.12478791 Report

Quoted By:

>>12478545
You are right that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with epicycles to calculate orbits or trajectories. Add enough cycles and you approximate anything. They are essentially Fourier transforms. However it's an incredibly inefficient method of doing so and gives no understanding of the underlying physics. It's not a scientific theory and makes no new predictions that can be measured.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Dec 2020 04:55:43 No.12478828 Report

Quoted By:

>>12478545
We know dark matter and dark energy aren´t real things, we just haven´t had a better explanation for it, people are waiting for someone to come along and chuck it out the window like with the eather

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches