Comments on: Getting to the Gravity of the Matter http://themoderatevoice.com/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:28:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Slamfu http://themoderatevoice.com/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-135328 Slamfu Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:49:10 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/futuristics/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/#comment-135328 "I wonder how many of them have actually considered the possibility that the current theory of gravity is simply not completely accurate."<br><br>All of them have. These guys are actually pretty smart folks when it comes to this stuff, and much of the information we have about the universe is inferred inderctly by what we can observe even when the total picture is hidden from us They are observing that while large galactic masses are not behaving as something of the expected mass should act, it is behaving as something of a signifigantly greater mass would act. It is pretty logical to assume that since the parts we can see are acting that way, its very likely there is something keeping us from seeing the missing mass in our galaxy, and others.<br><br>There are those at work on alternate theories as well, and they are smart too, but to simply assume that your avg astrophyscist hasn't thought about it is kinda silly. “I wonder how many of them have actually considered the possibility that the current theory of gravity is simply not completely accurate.”

All of them have. These guys are actually pretty smart folks when it comes to this stuff, and much of the information we have about the universe is inferred inderctly by what we can observe even when the total picture is hidden from us They are observing that while large galactic masses are not behaving as something of the expected mass should act, it is behaving as something of a signifigantly greater mass would act. It is pretty logical to assume that since the parts we can see are acting that way, its very likely there is something keeping us from seeing the missing mass in our galaxy, and others.

There are those at work on alternate theories as well, and they are smart too, but to simply assume that your avg astrophyscist hasn't thought about it is kinda silly.

]]> By: pacatrue http://themoderatevoice.com/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-135325 pacatrue Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:54:59 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/futuristics/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/#comment-135325 I believe this is how much of science actually does work, however. Most of quantum theory has never been observed. Instead, scientists think various things must exist to explain observable behavior within the theories that they have external evidence for. And it's not just the weird quantum stuff. Einstein frequently put his theories above the observations people were able to make at the time. He wasn't always right, but frequently, he was.<br><br>But in general, yes, theories should continually be revised. There's no easy answer on when evidence requires a theory's revision and when not, though there are a few hundred people who worry about this in the philosophy of science. I believe this is how much of science actually does work, however. Most of quantum theory has never been observed. Instead, scientists think various things must exist to explain observable behavior within the theories that they have external evidence for. And it's not just the weird quantum stuff. Einstein frequently put his theories above the observations people were able to make at the time. He wasn't always right, but frequently, he was.

But in general, yes, theories should continually be revised. There's no easy answer on when evidence requires a theory's revision and when not, though there are a few hundred people who worry about this in the philosophy of science.

]]> By: Jazz http://themoderatevoice.com/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-135324 Jazz Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:43:18 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/futuristics/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/#comment-135324 I can see and appreciate your point, but perhaps I wasn't clear on the more basic premise here. It's not that I'm skeptical of dark matter itself, per say. It's just that this seems to be a departure frrom the traditional scientfic method. In other words, it seems to me that the most direct route to "the truth" or "the best theory" has traditionally been to observe the phenomena and then develop a theory to explain it. In the case of this question of gravity and the actions of starts rotating the galaxy, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. We had the theory before we coud accurately measure the movement of the stars. When they refused to behave as predicted, rather than questioning the theory, we questioned the galaxy and are trying to redefine it to fit the pre-existing theory. Just seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. I can see and appreciate your point, but perhaps I wasn't clear on the more basic premise here. It's not that I'm skeptical of dark matter itself, per say. It's just that this seems to be a departure frrom the traditional scientfic method. In other words, it seems to me that the most direct route to “the truth” or “the best theory” has traditionally been to observe the phenomena and then develop a theory to explain it. In the case of this question of gravity and the actions of starts rotating the galaxy, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. We had the theory before we coud accurately measure the movement of the stars. When they refused to behave as predicted, rather than questioning the theory, we questioned the galaxy and are trying to redefine it to fit the pre-existing theory. Just seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

]]> By: Lynx http://themoderatevoice.com/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-135323 Lynx Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:14 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/futuristics/18958/getting-to-the-gravity-of-the-matter/#comment-135323 Though I appreciate the scepticism that the matter elicits, and while I'm no physicist myself, I am a scientist, and as such would like to make an appreciation.<br><br>In science virtually nothing is definitive. Think of how few things have the ultimate name "Law" (so far as I'm aware only a few physics concepts have it). Almost everything in sciences is a theory, including gravitation, incidentally. That isn't to say that a theory is just an educated guess (which is more like a hypothesis). Gravitation and Evolution are theories, and are not considered controversial or in question (no matter what creationists might say). But the fact of the matter is that since these concepts are not 100% fool-proof, the scientific method demands that they are “theories”.<br><br>Science is always looking for the truth, and is destined to pretty much always have it just out of reach. More than answers, science will give you the best available explanation. Science gives us explanations that allow us to explain phenomena, and what’s sometimes even more important, predict the results of other phenomena. This is key. Dark matter may be a load of hogwash, but it enables calculations to work. It’s the best we have right now, though that doesn’t mean its right. Certainly you can say “we don’t really know” when appropriate. The origin of the Universe (before Big Bang theory kicks in) is one such place. But sometimes in order for scientific investigations to advance you have to give an explanation that works, even if it sounds rather dubious, and simply use it until someone smarter than you can come in and explain where your mistake is. That’s the beautiful thing about the scientific method, it’s a self-correcting mechanism. Though I appreciate the scepticism that the matter elicits, and while I'm no physicist myself, I am a scientist, and as such would like to make an appreciation.

In science virtually nothing is definitive. Think of how few things have the ultimate name “Law” (so far as I'm aware only a few physics concepts have it). Almost everything in sciences is a theory, including gravitation, incidentally. That isn't to say that a theory is just an educated guess (which is more like a hypothesis). Gravitation and Evolution are theories, and are not considered controversial or in question (no matter what creationists might say). But the fact of the matter is that since these concepts are not 100% fool-proof, the scientific method demands that they are “theories”.

Science is always looking for the truth, and is destined to pretty much always have it just out of reach. More than answers, science will give you the best available explanation. Science gives us explanations that allow us to explain phenomena, and what’s sometimes even more important, predict the results of other phenomena. This is key. Dark matter may be a load of hogwash, but it enables calculations to work. It’s the best we have right now, though that doesn’t mean its right. Certainly you can say “we don’t really know” when appropriate. The origin of the Universe (before Big Bang theory kicks in) is one such place. But sometimes in order for scientific investigations to advance you have to give an explanation that works, even if it sounds rather dubious, and simply use it until someone smarter than you can come in and explain where your mistake is. That’s the beautiful thing about the scientific method, it’s a self-correcting mechanism.

]]>