>>16164308
It's not a fairytale you braindead useless faggot zoomer. God it's so amazing how most people are still retarded today and never realize or think to bother the reality of our cosmos, it seems to strange for stuff like this to exist and dumb faggots think a man made book has all the answers? Humanity is the smartest but dumbest species with low ambition.

>>16164467
Retards like this is why you must do it. The inmates are running the nuthouse.

>>16164308
You can make far more money as an astrologist for a rich old liberal bitch, specially if you have a massive fat cock that makes them feel like a virgin.

>>16164308
tell them its just a bunch of regular matter they cant see due to its low temperature.

>>16164467
you seem upset and irrational. clearly this is an emotional issue for you and not one you're capable addressing rationally

>>16164308
>Why must I study a phenomenon that can be observed to affect the entire universe?

Gee, I don't know. You say you want proven science but we can literally see the effects of these things. Obviously, we don't know what dark matter or energy are right now that's why we fucking study them.

>>16164530
Not true. Many soultions to the paradox don't involve magic dark matter and dark energy. The names alone show how bullshit and made up it all is. You faggots sound like 15th century wizards trying to explain why fire is actually a living creature. Then look when you can't grift on this bullshit any longer you will just claim some other bullshit and say "well that's just science, you win some you lose some!" but it's actually just retards chasing imaginary friends and calling it a "career in science".

I GOD DAMN DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG! spoiler, you never will

File: 1704814990690.gif (131 KB, 128x128)

131 KB GIF

>dude i totally know everything about the entire universe!!!
>i learned it all on the black soience man show on TV!!!

>>16164559
>The names alone show how bullshit and made up it all is

Yes you retard it was named that because we don't fucking know what it is. So yes it is literally a made-up explanation to an observable phenomenon. Show me your explanations to a universe without dark matter/energy and tell me how they are not just a possible explanation for those terms.

>>16164308
I agree its bs, taking all that space in your head and shoveling it with nonsense. I suppose that's why we have so little fresh ideas in the field, you can liyerally spend your entire career chasing ghosts and being as close to reality as priest.

>>16164559
Wait until you see the periodic table of poketons for all of the virtual particles that are totally real.

>>16164523
dumb nigger who cares, just think, think and ponder our universe. let your mind explore instead of being chained by social expectations.

>>16164609
It's a simulation. There, just as much "science" as your made up reason. Yes I can craft an experiment to prove or disprove simulation theory. I bet I could do it faster and for less money than people like you spent to get no where on Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Other scientists have theories like modified newtonion dynamics and even errors in the fundamental understanding or observations of the universe. It's very possible you could all be chasing literally nothingburgers.

You might as well call it "Mystery X" and see how you avoid all the other possibilities including that it could all be a base level mistake in the math or model. Instead you spin tales of magic ether and magic dust that is unseeable ....unseeable unless you build giant expensive atom smashers where you and all your scientist buddies get cushy jobs to play science all day. It's so laughable. All you tards do is fail and then scream at anyone who dares point out the obvious. PROVE ME WRONG I'LL WAIT HERE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

>>16164664
Oh I have anon, medical doctors do the same bullshit. They have a "Mystery Illness X" and give it some fancy name. But when you look into what the name means it means "Mysterious (symptom Y) Disorder" Then they diagnose you with MYD and you think that means they know what's wrong with you....but they literally don't know shit, just that you have the symptom you self reported. It's basically a fancy way of saying you've "got the vapers" or some other bullshit 18th century quack speak. Same here with physics, they are calling it "ether" and other nonsense terms that mean nothing.

>>16164715
MORE INFO
>A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong
https://archive.is/aY3NQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MVl1cSmYE

You people are parrots, you repeat what you're told to repeat in hopes of candy and crackers. You aren't real people with real thoughts. It shows.

>>16164715
>wikipedia
refernecing wikipedia is as much as admitting you have no idea what you're talking about and that your knowledge of the topic is limited to what you got skimming the first google result

>>16164715
How does the universe being a simulation explain dark matter/energy? There is still a phenomenon within the simulation that we do not have an explanation for, calling the universe a simulation does not solve any problems because we still have the laws of physics as defined within the terms of the simulation.

Are you implying that the phenomena we attribute to these things are caused by an error in the simulation, that's the only possible angle I can see you arguing for that even makes an iota of sense.

I agree that it could be explained by failures in observation or our understanding of the universe, however, how the hell are we supposed to figure out if this is the case if we do not study it? Are we supposed to just say "Dark matter is witchcraft!" and then wait for a benevolent god to deliver the answer onto our laps?

And yes it might as well be called mystery x, that's basically the fucking name that was given to it moron.

>>16164566
Thats why astroslop is a magnet for people with narcissistic personality disorder. It draws them in like flies to shit because astroslop gives them an excuse to proclaim "i totally know everything about the entire universe!!!"

>>16164755
Simulation Theory solves whatever I want it to, give me grant money to prove it...but if I don't prove it no refunds.

That's how you all sound and then act high and mighty when you get a taste of your own medicine.

Also posted wrong Sabine. Here updated one.

https://youtu.be/ERazd-SYk_s?si=XMfnYaSfpSj59-S6

It is more likely a fundamental misunderstanding of gravity as opposed to magic invisible dust. Basic logic my guy. Think horses when you hear hoof beats not zebra.

If it was called Mystery X it wouldn't be called dark matter/energy which implies many things that are just wild guesses like undiscovered forms of matter and energy aka zebras. When in reality the idea of gravity being misunderstood on the grand galactic scale is more likely, less exotic, and less of a stretch. However getting grant money for modification of gravity on galactic scales seems boring and hard. Spin a tale of exotic spooky dark matter and they throw money at you, hell maybe dark energy can be used to time travel for all we know right?

As to the simulation, it prioritizes resources here on Earth and simulation of minds over deep space physics. It's wasteful to devote so much processor time to meaningless galaxies that equate to background scenery to the main show. Same reason no aliens. Solution to the Fermi Paradox is the simulation won't waste vast resources simulating alien worlds we can't even observe and aren't the focus of the simulation. It's a one species server.

>>16164308
If you can't entertain a hypothesis hypotheticalllly then you don't belong in academia.

>>16164467
The oldest zoomers are 28...

>>16164910
shit, never thought I am a zoomer

>>16164846
I'm not overly attached to dark matter theory or the names dark matter/energy. I don't know why you are hyper-obsessing over the terminology. If an alternative explanation is found like modified gravity it accomplishes the same goal to me as discovering the truth behind dark matter would. Also, I already watched the video you sent I've seen all the Sabine videos already she's interesting.

In general though, I have no clue why you seem so opposed to dark matter research, I think every possible avenue should be explored, including things like simulation theory. Right now, dark matter is a viable path of research that seems like it could bear fruit in the future, but maybe not! What matters is what we actually observe, and I would like to be able to find an explanation to that through science. I have my own ideas of explaining the universe that I choose to believe in (that do not involve the theories you seem to think I'm so attached to). But you are just being close-minded when you have no tangible reason to oppose this theory so hard. It's sad.

Also, I do agree that a fundamental misunderstanding of gravity is a very likely explanation for "dark matter" considering how little we understand about gravity. That doesn't mean that the theory should not be taught in schools or researched anymore.

>>16165013
>I don't know why you are hyper-obsessing over the terminology.

Tell me you are a midwit without telling me you are a midwit. Vocabulary and it's definitions is all that matters, full stop.

> I think every possible avenue should be explored
Except it's not, modern cosmology is being held hostage by a cult of string theorists and dark matter/energy zealots. No one gets, time, money, or anything besides laughed at. I've seen it in other branches of science where a core group of people use deceptive language to confuse normies into thinking everything they say is proven fact, "Trust the science Chud" is all you hear if you dare speak against the dogma. Like I said Simulation Theory can and is technically being tested now but no one is even allowed to discuss it. All we need do is create a simulated world ourselves and it mathematically points to us living in a simulation, if we fail after decades of work we can deduce we are not in a simulation as they are impossible to make. It's a really simple idea, can't be discussed. Instead this core group of scientists captures all the public attention, grant money, and top talent. Then entire generations are diverted down dead end roads. That's bad for all of humanity. That's not how science should be done but here we are.

Are you even aware how long they've been "working on" dark matter/energy? First theorized in the 19th century and later re-theorized in more detail in the 1920's-1930's.......still actual dark matter or energy found. How many more decades do we wait?

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
― George Orwell, 1984

>>16165045
I wish you had just responded with this first so I could have taken you less seriously.

Also, I don't see how failing after decades to make a simulated world would prove we aren't in one. Why would you assume whatever is simulating our world only took decades to make with human-level intelligence? And why would you necessarily assume that the tools required to simulate a world were also included in the simulation? Have you actually considered this at all?

And don't pretend that alternative gravity theories are not being explored. Gravity itself is one of the biggest black boxes in physics.

>>16165045
> Tell me you are a midwit without telling me you are a midwit. Vocabulary and it's definitions is all that matters, full stop.

I have never seen a take this bad on the internet period, jesus fucking christ. Isn't the whole point of science to progress humanity through understanding and studying concepts? Not fucking semantics???? Im surprised you didn't get filtered by the captcha, your synapses are clearly only capable of firing one at a time.

>>16164566
you need some better insults

>>16164308
Think about it like more of a placeholder value. I assume you know the further a planet is from the sun the slower it moves through space. Astrophysicists think that galaxies should behave the same way, with stars moving slower the further they are from the centre. But they actually move too fast, so the regular calculations don't work. To make the calculations work they've added in dark matter. Either they had to add something like invisible matter, or they had to change the calculations to work for a galaxy, but the calculations would then break for a solar system. Having different calculations for speed of objects in a solar system vs a galaxy would introduce all kinds of other problems and would mean something's changing with gravity instead. I believe there are people researching doing exactly that though, alternatives to relativity, but I guess all the options for detecting dark matter haven't been exhausted yet so research on that also continues. It's going to be one or the other and I think the dark matter/energy solution is simpler, even if it does sound stranger

>>16164308
it's important to learn about unsolved mysteries of the universe you pseud

>>16164308
Science is not proven or unproven, it is only falsified or yet to be falsified.

The cold dark matter hypothesis has yet to be falsified, and is (for now) the best explanation to conflicts between general relativity and several observations. Give it another ten or fifteen years for researchers to exhaust the list of viable candidates, and maybe it will be falsified. Or maybe not.

>>16165238
>The cold dark matter hypothesis has yet to be falsified
Its not falsifiable, which is why it isn't scientific
>unicorns have yet to be falsified therefore they're the best available hypothesis

>>16165245
>Its not falsifiable
If we don't find any new particles which could be cold dark matter than it will have been falsified.

>>16165245
If someone found a theory that was a better fit it would be researched instead. Also I don't see how it's not falsifiable, if we can prove a different solution to the problem then that effectively disproves the theory no?

>>16164308
There is no need for dark matter, galaxies are not stable.

>>16165335
>Also I don't see how it's not falsifiable,
It's unfalsifiable because you mold it to fit the observation. By definition it fills the gap between whatever model that you have, your expectations, and the observation, therefore it can never be proven false.

>if we can prove a different solution to the problem then that effectively disproves the theory no?
How about this: Galaxies are not stable for any meaningfuly long timespans.

>>16164910
I'm 27 and a millennial (dec 1996)

>>16164308
>study dark matter and dark energy
Did he disclosed what substance this dark matter is?

>>16165245
>>unicorns have yet to be falsified therefore they're the best available hypothesis
On our planet an armored version exist ..

>>16165335
A better fit? The theory postulates that 99% of the something out there is complete unobservium and that all of reality bends to it. All to explain some orbital mechanics. Star models are just wrong.

>>16164308
>Why must I waste time learning about unproven fairytales
because science is that. Science if thinking up "fairytales" to explain reality, and then test the fairytales against reality to see which ones fit the best as models.

space is fake and gay

bump

>>16164308
We told you redpills come at a heavy price

>>16165335
>If someone found a theory that was a better fit it would be researched instead
Except it's not https://phys.org/news/2022-07-dark-ditch-favor-theory-gravity.html

>Why must I waste time learning about unproven fairytales in order to be a physicist?
If you can't answer that you haven't studied at all.

>>16164559
>Many soultions to the paradox don't involve magic dark matter and dark energy.
No, instead they involve magical arbitrary modifications to physics to fit the data. That's not somehow better just because it's not called dark "X". Each additional parameter is an assumption, modifying gravity is just as much of an assumption as adding matter.
There aren't any solutions, and there is no alternative which can explain all cosmological data today. Even the "best" alternative today (MOND) fails dozens of tests, it's proponents have now accepted they need dark matter to fix their dark-matter alternative model.

>>16165373
>By definition it fills the gap between whatever model that you have, your expectations, and the observation, therefore it can never be proven false.
That is false. DM is not simply defined as the difference between theory and observation. There are quanative models of it's stucture and statistics, the standard model being Cold Dark Matter. CDM succesfully predicted the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background, these flcutuations cannot be fit by models with only normal matter. But dark matter models predicted them.

>How about this: Galaxies are not stable for any meaningfuly long timespans.
The Sun is 5 billion years old, about 25 galactic orbits. If galaxies were disrupted over the orbital timescale we would still be inside ours.
Also gravitational lensing gives consistent mass estimates. So this doesn't work on any level.

>>16168900
That review is bullshit. The authors are MOND researchers. It's about as credible and fair as a Russian election. MOND cannot explain all the data.

>>16168900
You don't understand the scope of better fit in this case. A better fit model must not only be more accurate, but more palatable to the scientific community. The taste and aesthetics of the scientific community must change in order for science to flourish. The source of paradigm shifts is death of the old wankers and replacing them with new ones. This doesn't have to be the only way. Scientists can change their consciousness faster if they all started microdosing.

>>16168931
>That review is bullshit. The authors are MOND researchers.
If a neutrals commetee did the review you'd label them mond researchers too.

File: KhghnfRqSJOT_16536x0_ub2i5mt8.jpg (952 KB, 1810x1207)

952 KB JPG

>>16168931
>The Sun is 5 billion years old, about 25 galactic orbits. If galaxies were disrupted over the orbital timescale we would still be inside ours.
We are. Aren't we?

The current models are observably false, all galaxies show extensive clouds or trails of dimmer stars.

Pic from here, thrre are more https://www.astrobin.com/users/ollypenrice/

>>16169017
Look up their papers.
And you can see the bias yourself. Take for example baryon acoustic oscillations, or the matter correlation function. These are major tests of cosmology, and yet they don't appear anywhere in this grid.
They also group the entire CMB together as one point, but list the Local Group many times as separate points.
Or the fact that they list "external field effect" as a problem for standard cosmology, when this is a purely MOND effect and the analysis which "detected" it assumed MOND.

It's like the old idiom of judging a fish by it's ability to climb a tree. It's not science.


>>16169053
>The Sun is 5 billion years old, about 25 galactic orbits. If galaxies were disrupted over the orbital timescale we would still be inside ours.
Typo. Wouldn't still me. At 220 km/s over 5 Gyr we would cover over 2 billion light years. And yet we are only 30,000 light years from the Galactic Center.

>The current models are observably false, all galaxies show extensive clouds or trails of dimmer stars.
Caused by mergers. They contain a tiny fraction of the light of a typical galaxy.
These trails are actually expected in standard galaxy formation, were galaxies grow primary through hierarchical merging.

>>16169144
Sorry. 2 million.

>>16169144
>>16169017
>>16168900
Also note that the tests aren't even the same in standard cosmology and MOND. If you're trying to construct an objective comparison of different models you need to use the same standard for both. But they don't.
Standard cosmology gets judged by expansion history, the cluster mass function, the galaxy correlation function. How does MOND fair at these tests? The authors didn't bother to include these because MOND cannot explain them, at all.
So when MOND fails at some test, it's not even part of the grid.
Not only did the authors cherrypick a set of "tests" but they proceed to pick different lists for the different models. It's absurd and meaningless.

One of their "tests" is the bullet cluster offset. MOND cannot explain it. So how have the authors done so?
>However, the Bullet Cluster can be reconciled with MOND using extra collisionless matter in the form of neutrinos with a mass of 2 eV/c2
They add dark matter. MOND is rescued by adding dark matter. If you have to add dark matter to your DM alternative it has failed. And even with adding this it still doesn't fix all the other problems.