tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post4133752929544814136..comments2023-08-01T17:43:14.664+03:00Comments on Magister Mortran: Dark MatterMagister Mortranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393820354644211186noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-10301838095911360542012-11-09T14:10:41.169+03:002012-11-09T14:10:41.169+03:00This is exactly the point. It is about the scienti...This is exactly the point. It is about the scientific method. Of course the current models work, if you include enough arbitrary variables like dark matter, dark energy, inflation theory etc. But this is not how science should approach a problem. <br />Then after all scientists wonder why the universe is so precisely fine-tuned and all the variables have exactly the values they need in order for the universe to work. And then they start speculating that there must be some unknown intelligent designer or they resort to the anthropic principle forgetting that it was themselves who fine-tuned these variables.Magister Mortranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393820354644211186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-67005240979732205942012-11-08T23:13:06.963+03:002012-11-08T23:13:06.963+03:00I do enjoy your blog... I don't agree with eve...I do enjoy your blog... I don't agree with every point you make in it, but I see the inherent value. Far too many people today walk the line of doctrine, even in scientific fields, while making no effort to think for themselves.<br /><br />Allow me to relay a comment I recently made on a YouTube video, where the discussion had wandered into a subject of religion vs. science. I dared to make the following comment:<br /><br /><i>The Religious: There's this man, in the sky. You can't see him or touch him or hear him but... He sits on a throne and makes everything happen.<br /><br />The Scientists: There's this stuff, in the sky. You can't see it or touch it or feel it but... It is there, and it makes up 83% of the Universe. Without it our mathematical models for gravity fall apart. So, while we can't prove it exists, our models don't work without it.<br /><br />Pot... meet kettle.</i><br /><br />I was immediately crucified by a considerable number of people. Told I was stupid and that I have no right to procreate because I dared to disagree with the established doctrine of the scientific community. Many of them I will assume are arm-chair physicists. I am a student of computation, and occasionally an arm-chair physicist myself. But I'm always the first to note that I am not a physicist and that my own comments should be considered conjecture, even when logically valid.<br /><br />I had not heard of the Dark Energy & Matter theory before a couple of years ago. I don't spend a lot of time researching physics, but I can occasionally understand some of what is presented. I happened upon a program on the National Geographic Channel that attempted to explain the theory of Dark Matter to the layman. I think what piqued my interest was the featured scientists explaining that computers have only recently become powerful enough to effectively model gravity in a timely manner. Then he said something that I found genuinely shocking...<br /><br />I'm going to paraphrase here, "When we started the simulation we were baffled because our model galaxies fell apart in the time span of a single orbit. It was then that we knew there must be some other immeasurable substance out there to account for that missing mass."<br /><br />Huh? Your method doesn't work, so you solve for X and invent some mysterious and undetectable substance that plugs into that variable and fixes <b>your</b> model. Not only that, but suddenly this mysterious goo comprises 83% of the mass in the universe?! Have you considered, just for a moment, that something's wrong with the method itself?<br /><br />As I mentioned before my study is computation. Often when designing an algorithm, there's a lot of experimentation involved. When you try a function and the input is correct and the output is close to, but not exactly what you expect, then you may have overlooked something. If the input is correct and the output is way the hell off what you expect, say 83%; chances are better than not that there's something seriously wrong with the methodology. These scenarios aren't always the case of course. But, something that far out of bounds is usually telling.<br /><br />I'm am not a physicist, so my rationale may not apply. But, I find ideas of mysterious and immeasurable things highly suspicious in the general sense. While I can't say for certain that mysterious and immeasurable things don't exist, more often than not their application to a problem is the product of lazy or illogical thinking.Luridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157236357677638874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-1235532139239985082012-11-05T18:12:53.823+03:002012-11-05T18:12:53.823+03:00What truth?What truth?Magister Mortranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393820354644211186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-55466774844180766642012-11-05T01:17:34.658+03:002012-11-05T01:17:34.658+03:00You write a lot of mambo jumbo about other's m... You write a lot of mambo jumbo about other's mambo jumbo; what's the difference ? The truth is there, no matter if we see it or not. (The Universe has no need of us) .<br /> If Einstein; realized all the science facts correctly, 100%; what would it profit him now anyways? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com