I’m starting to think that “Astro” is code for “kook”: Astrophysicists are mystified after concluding that 80% of the light in the universe appears to be missing.
I’m starting to think that “Astro” is code for “kook”: Astrophysicists are mystified after concluding that 80% of the light in the universe appears to be missing.
Science changes completely almost every 20 years. Except what we can verify visually or repeatedly, most of it is based on theory. New discoveries with these lovely constructs completely change the landscape for theorists. It why sciences based on these airy fairy ideas never last long. Its why its a dangerous business making science secular dogma.
Astrophysics is closer to religion than science.
Er. Where have we seen this before? I know – the “scientists” that push AGW. If the data doesn’t fit what they need to have happen, then they just change the data. These astrophysicist scientists are caught in the same conundrum. I’m not an astrophysicist (Just a solid state physicist or metallurgical engineer to the unwashed), but it is obvious to me that they have a great encompassing theory that doesn’t fit their data. So, instead of just saying that their theory is wrong, or that the data doesn’t support it, they hang it all on the data is wrong or photons are missing. They couldn’t possibly, with all their government grants, and with all their publications, have an error somewhere, possibly, a wrong assumption, experimental design error, or hubris. For PhDs, the scientific method should never, never interfere with funding.
Hm, might be a good idea to put a tax on,just in case.
They are just playing the Big Grift.
Now they will demand more money, bigger, faster computers.
The mass media reports significantly distort the finding. At heart what the calculations suggest is that the light entering certain dust clouds isn’t as bright as theory suggested it should be. Lots of ifs, buts, maybes: a qualified question raised by data.
That’s how progress is made -there’s nothing kooky about any of it – well, except for the media reports, those were written by arts grads masquerading as science writers.
Not only dark matter but dark light! Well, I suspect perhaps we do not understand the universe on the galactic, let alone cosmic, scale.
Consider that in that in 8o% of the universe it may just be night time.
Its not missing.
I know where it is.
Once I finish my list of demands, I will contact those concerned.
First off though, Suzuki has to give back the $20 he swindled from me a couple of years ago.
Robert of Ottawa “Not only dark matter but dark light!”
And why not dark light? – after all global warming causes global cooling.
Expecting the press to explain astrophysics is like expecting someone who can’t do paint by numbers to be an art critic examining Rembrandt.
Although astronomy and astrology are fascinating subjects, you know, very much voluntarily that with astrology that you’re taking a ride in rear air sort of and basically pay your way.
Astronomy, on the other hand is sophisticated science, you can put quotes around that if you prefer.
Now, looking for the lost light can turn out to be very profitable for the astronomical science. Could be in billions and billions as Sagan would say.
What’s not to like about science.
That would be “rare air”.
Wat (sic) can one say?
Pretty sure Sid Blickens has that light stored in his garage on Elm street. Either that or those Jooooos stole it last week and are now lobbing it at the Fake istanians
90% of the light will be where I am in a couple of hours. Seems to happen on a regular basis.
Yeah, I’m pretty much a layman but perhaps they should examine their basic assumption.
“The total amount of light in the universe can be measured by tracking changes in hydrogen after exposure to ultraviolet light. The hydrogen becomes ionized and can be seen on large telescopes.”
Even I am aware of quite a few sources of ionization other than light…such as cosmic rays, solar winds……
It’s right there with all the lost socks.
The golly woggles ate it.
In addition to your having an outstanding name, you have made one of the greatest and appropriate comments on this thread (or many others for that matter). You are truly an original thinker and probably not an astro-physicist, to our world’s loss.
>Science changes completely almost every 20 years.
Bit of a stretch. In most cases “refines itself” is more appropriate than “completely changes” cf. Newtonian gravity vs. Einstein’s general relativity. Particle physics is probably the “purest” science in that it does not depend on other branches of science and it has been a case of steady refinement. The Standard Model has not changed since the 50s, give or take.
>Except what we can verify visually or repeatedly, most of it is based on theory.
When you say “theory” I think that it does not mean what it means to a scientist. But fine, as long as by “visually” you mean “by way of detectors that are many many orders of magnitude more accurate and sensitive and than our human senses), which covers a lot more than what I think you mean.
The comparison between astrophysics and “climate science” is appropriate in that ultimately they are dealing with extremely complex systems involving just about every law/theory/hypothesis in all underlying realms of physical science. The key point here is that the uncertainties multiply as you depend on more and more underlying science and as a result the hypotheses put forward are inherently susceptible to being way off, and overturned by new refinements in the underlying sciences.
The difference is that astrophysicists aren’t able to influence the movement of huge sums of money by updating (or not updating) their hypotheses, whereas “climate scientists” can and do(n’t). Together with their politician co-conspirators they have a strong monetary/influence-based incentive to show that temperatures are rising and that the increase is human and/or CO2-caused. This has led to a breakdown of the scientific method as alternative explanations are not investigated even with continued observations that do not correspond closely enough to the models to be considered scientifically valid in any way. This also leads to a situation where leading “climate scientists” when dealing with laypeople (politicians, the public) will tend to focus on what they believe to be the case (as opposed to what they can scientifically argue via the submission of hypotheses that explain known observations) while failing to distinguish this opinion from real science.
It may well turn out to be the case that in the long run temperatures will continue to rise and that the increase is mostly human-caused, but to call the current arguments put forward “science” does a disservice to the the word.
Some sage named Kate once observed that some folks, astrophysionists perhaps, think that the only difference between Shit and Sunshine was the speed at which they travelled *on the Highway of Life!
*I may have added that last part
Compare and contrast: cosmology and climate science. The former admit they don’t have all the answers; the latter claim the “science is settled”. The former don’t want to micro-manage your life, the latter do.
I have long been dissatisfied with the Standard Model. There is no mechanism anywhere in the equations of the Standard Model for inflation to have taken place, or for inflation to stop once started. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are epicycles – mathematical tricks added on an ad hoc basis to explain why our observations don’t match the Standard Model. And there is no way to determine which, if any, of the infinite possible number of string theories is correct.
Clearly, we’ve gone down the wrong path for decades. What is needed is a new approach altogether. I’m currently most interested in the work of Louise Riofrio, John Kulick, and Stephen Wolfram.
Riofrio postulates that the speed of light is not actually a constant, but varies with the age of the universe according to the formula GM=Tc^3. Kulick has postulated that space itself is quantized, implying that there is no such thing as a singularity, that the Big Bang wasn’t a single event but a process that continues across the entire universe to this day, and that the entire universe is moving relative to a fourth spatial dimension. Wolfram has proposed that the universe operates like a state machine, and that mass/energy/charge/spin/light are manifestations of something even more fundamental: information.
These three ideas play together nicely, and require no dark energy or dark matter to explain the effects we see in galaxy rotation rates and type 1 supernova standard candles, eliminate the need to invoke inflation, and resolve other problems with Physics like the faint young sun paradox. It isn’t the full answer, but it is a more promising path than Physics has taken the last three or four decades.