what is dark matter and dark energy? there is something paranormal

>>18612474
>what is dark matter and dark energy?
They are numbers the scientists add to their equations to make them balance.

The reason they need that is because their model of the unverse is wrong, but admitting that would be uncomfortable.

>>18612505
Mischaracterized, but essentially correct. It's one of the few times Occam's Razor ACTUALLY applies to the situation.

We currently have two models accepted in science for calculating bodies in motion: Newtonian Physics, and General Relativity. They both are extremely accurate in their predictions, as long as you stay within their parameters. However when we look at the motions of certain things - especially very large things like galaxies - the models break down. We can see galaxies rotate at a rate that - according to the model - should make them much more massive than we can account for. We call this "unobserved mass" dark matter. We can observe an acceleration in the movement of galaxies and galaxy clusters that our models can't account for. We call whatever causes this dark energy.

So our choice here is to say "everything about these models that have been accurate for centuries (or decades for GR) is wrong, and we need to start over" or "our models are mostly right, but need to be adjusted to account for this new observation." Thus, with Occam's Razor, most people choose to test the one introducing fewer variables and stick with adjusting what Newton and Einstein built.

And honestly, there would be no discomfort in finding out our models are wrong. Any physicist with a speck of ambition would want to go down as being to the one to show the great foundations of science are wrong. The problem is jumping to that as the first step, rather than the last.

>>18612474
Matter doesn't matter.

Wether its dark or not.

Science is bullshit.

S e a n c e is bullseye.

>>18612505
any true scientist admits that any observation or theory we make creates a dozen new questions
Science is not religeon, it doesn't pretend to have all the answers

it freely admits that human science is in its infancy. we have barely crawled out of our caves compared to what is potentially knowable

it doesn't mean everything is wrong and they make shit up to cover that. it means this is what we know at the moment.

>>18613174
that doesn't excuse the fact that the scientific community would much rather see the world getting destroyed by a meteor because of their hedonistic view of the world rather than actually admitting that they're wrong.
its the messiah syndrome caused by stephen hawking and followed by his kind

>>18612474
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUIcCyPOA30

>>18613246
Holy shit that is gold.

>>18612819
I disagree with the very last paragraph. Scientists have bias like any other human being, and well life is short. They would rather die thinking they had their small sliver of the universe figured out than think they were wrong. Science does evolve but it's when the old guard die off.

>>18613350
At the moment this certainly isn't the case. In the last several decades there haven't been any major advancements in physics and everyone outside of industry(and some inside) want to be the next Einstein.

Look at the Higgs Boson, it took so long to confirm its existence. We've come so far that the technology to test any new theory just isn't there or it never will be.

Old guard isn't a problem, since even their theories(I assume that by the old guard you mean string theorists, anything other than that makes no sense) cannot be tested at this moment.

>>18613246
Bill Hicks is so hollywood teaching reverse truth. Cooper was the real deal.

Same thing as pericycles were a few centuries ago: Complete nonsense made up to explain away inconsistencies in a broken model.

Just a few months ago, it was confirmed that gravity is not a fundamental force, but an emergent phenomenon caused by entropy. They're still working to confirm it, but if it works, then the equations get balanced and dark matter and energy will be debunked.

>>18613524
>Just a few months ago, it was confirmed that gravity is not a fundamental force

No, that was never confirmed. Not saying it can't be true, but it simply was not confirmed.

>dark matter and energy will be debunked.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Both of these are real in the sense actual psysicists use them - they're just names for something unknown that produces a measurable effect as the word after dark would.

Also, current models are not broken, they're incomplete. They would be broken if people claimed they explain everything, which they obivously don't, because if they did no one would research anything anymore, now would they?

>>18612474
A while go, special relativity got absolutely BTFO when we realised that galaxies don't have enough matter to make them not fall apart, and the universe is accelerating in expansion.

So theoretical physicists invented "dark matter" and "dark energy" to save their shitty theory.

Basically
>"it's magic! I ain't gotta explain shit!"

>>18613524
>Just a few months ago, it was confirmed that gravity is not a fundamental force, but an emergent phenomenon caused by entropy.

No it absolutely was not. Verlinde's Emergent Gravity is far from "confirmed", it's not made any novel test and it simply has no answers to the key observable of dark matter in structure formation and dynamical situations like the bullet cluster.

Secondly Verlinde solves these equations using a de Sitter background solution, he assumes dark energy.

>>18614175
Special relativity doesn't do gravitation.

>"it's magic! I ain't gotta explain shit!"

What really happened was:
>Add a new component to a model and test the hell out of it
>halos, structure formation, CMB powerspectrum, Bullet Cluster, ...

Despite your ignorant suggestions dark matter is actually a very well explained model, it simply adds a pressureless massive component to the universe at early times which traces the same perturbations as the matter. Just because it isn't known what dark matter might be on a particle physics level doesn't mean the cosmological model doesn't explain exactly why things happen in that model.

Theoretically dark matter swirls down a wormhole due to pressure from dihydrogen monoxide. In practice though, occasionally, you need to use a plunger.

>>18613635

>Not saying it can't be true, but it simply was not confirmed.

If we can link electromagnetism to gravity it could solve many problems like why galaxies are pushing away from eachother. "Dark energy"

Not sure how likely this is, but I imagine it plays a much bigger role then were giving it credit for.

>>18613199
You sound religious.
(In a wrong way)
You really think scientists want the world to burn ? Why would you say that ?

File: 4eb97e4ea83a97495b000045.jpg (27KB, 687x577px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 687x577px

>asking the dumbest board on 4chan a question that the most brilliant minds can't answer

>>18614565
>if

Galaxies are not pushing away from eachother, look at Andromeda for that.

Electromagnetic force is also weaker than gravity at long distances, so that's out of the question.

You're also assuming that the electrogravity would have a single charge, so it'd repel every form of matter. That is also nonsense because galaxies that are farther away move faster away from eachother, only reasonable explanation is the expansion of the universe.

As for linking the forces, I'm guessing you're reffering to electro-weak force, which happens only at ridiculosly high temperatures.Of course, you could riposte that combining the forces(in this case gravity and electromagnetism) is possible as the temperatures get colder, but that would've already been observed since the universe has the uniform temperature and is pretty cold and we'd the effects of it in our solar system.

So, combining electromagnetism with gravity means nothing on the grand scale. The combining at high temperatures is the only possibility(and that's not proven or even assumed in any way),and it wouldn't explain the accelerating expansion because the universe is cold.

Entropic gravity though is an interesting concept, and I'd like to see if something comes out of it, but as it stands it seems to be just a rewriting of know effects through thermodynamics(which is fascinating, but doesn't have to mean anything).

As I mentioned in >>18613371
I think we still don't have the technology or resources to test this. Physicists can be crafty, though, so some genius might be able to present a theory with simple enough experiments to test it. I hope that happens.