What are dark matter and dark energy? I read the wikipedia article

something that doesnt exist

you will see a lot of physicists defending it tho, since it's needed to explain errors in their flawed theories

>>8969991
Something that should be called unknown source gravity, so that people will finally shut the fuck up and stop accusing scientists of invoking supernatural shit.

>>8969994
>>8970004
Why does the milky way rotate at the same speed at the outermost part of the disk then? I guess Kepler's laws can explain every type of movement besides that.

>>8970048
god did it, galaxies are god's fidget spinners

>>8970048
Why are you responding to >>8970004 as well, he didn't say dark matter doesn't exist, he just said that most people criticizing dark matter simply don't fucking get what it's supposed to be. And it's just supposed to be a name for anomalous deviations between visible matter and the gravitational effect it has. There are of course a lot of different approaches to explain that deviation, the most consistent explanation however is unknown matter that only interacts gravitationally. It isn't a particularly satisfying explanation, but it's far from implausible. There is no good reason why matter like that shouldn't exist.

>>8970076
You laugh but maybe there's a creator at the origin of the Big Bang and equations of the universe. Of course, it wouldn't be a creator like in the Bible, but something that we can't even imagine to represent it.

kek this thread, unbelievable how many underage shits we have on this board

>>8969991
Dark Matter: A yet to be explained source of gravity that is not involved in any electromagnetic interaction(meaning invisible). When scientists observed the rotation speed of galaxies or measured their mass with gravitational lensing it became appearent that galaxies are much heavier than they "seem". If you add up the mass of all the baryonic matter(visible matter, stars, planets, everything you can see and touch)in a large celestial body it's not nearly enough to account for the measured mass. But that mass has to come from somewhere. Likely candidates are WIMPs(weakly interacting massive particles) which are probably light supersymmetric particles. The latest findings of the gravitational wave detectors may shed some light onto this.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/06/16/dark-matter-in-primordial-black-hole-collision/
Dark Energy: Even more elusive. Basically the force that is responsible for the expansion of the universe. Little is known as to what it might be, don't know much about it myself

>>8970149
Why are you repeating what has already been said?

File: 1447599415377.gif (187KB, 276x374px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 276x374px

>>8970176
I want to come off as smart.

>>8970187
that's pretty smart

>>8970100
Might be, but discussing it is pointless and not the point of physics unless we find a way to scientifically test the hypothesis.

>>8970100
>maybe there's a creator
What created the creator

>>8970048
Machos

File: d2e.png (78KB, 412x351px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 412x351px

>>8970338
Good point

I am going to hide myself in shame.

>>8970338
The creator would be independent of time/space. At least, that's the deal according to Aquinas.

There's either a perfect cause or turtles all the way down.

>>8970338
> Create

You only know of creation because you exist in this realm. You literally cannot fathom something that needs no origin to exist, yet in the same mindset you would say "the universe created itself from nothing".

Kys

>>8970478
occam's razor

>>8970488
It's not simple anyway you slice it though. It's a complex and frustrating concept.

Btw, Occam's razor is fucking bullshit. There are so many counter examples to it, why bother? Occam's razor boils down to a PREFERENCE for scienctific theories, it reflects nothing from truth and reality.

>>8970495
occam's razor has proven mathematical merit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference

>>8970499
> comparing apples to oranges

This has nothing to do with my points and we are not talking about mathematics. If there are counterexamples to Occam's razor, is it not shit?

>>8970495
>it reflects nothing from truth and reality
it perfectly chaffs out convoluted bullshit, like "sky is a hologram, because the illuminati want to give your children autism through fluoride water"

>>8970507
you have to remember that Occam's razor evaluates only hypotheses with similar predictive power, then it is right.

>>8969994
Theory IS how you perceive things. Saying it doesn't exist because only "theory" describes it is incredibly stupid.

>>8970509
>>8970513

It can't be "right" because it doesn't make any assertions.

The original statement by Occam: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"

So if you have two theories that fit the same observations, the simpler theory is better. That however doesn't mean its true.

We aren't talking about any scientific theories that fit any observations... why are we even discussing Occam's razor?

>>8970531
It's fun.

>>8970531
occam's razor, the modern one, can eliminate one of the two, that doesn't mean the remaining one is correct, it means it is better than the other one.
of course falsifiability is expected.