Dark Matter

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

which has been refuted on the first page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From your frame of reference ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the available data, which could be wrong for all we know. And as history tells us, will be one wrong theory in a long line of wrong theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't even begin to "refute" a theory yourself. You are not a scientist, and they are MUCH smarter than you. What you "think" virtually means *nothing*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen nothing here to even begin to refute Dark Matter. You're all going on and on about how you can't see it, or something. So? You can't see Black Holes, either, but we know them to be factual. You see them by looking at the radiation and whatnot that they emit. They are saying that Dark Matter apparently emits nothing to view, so it's a theory on why some things have more mass than they should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it wrong because it makes no sense to you? =;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pessimistic Meta Induction is a pretty solid argument for why a scientific theory can never be right. The following paragraph is taken from wikipedia (cause I'm too lazy to write it out on my own)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"In the philosophy of science, the pessimistic induction, also known as the pessimistic meta-induction, is an argument against the truth, or even approximate truth, of our present scientific theories. The argument is that because past theories (for example Newtonian mechanics) which were very successful (enabled us to make accurate predications, seemed to explain many puzzling phenomena etc.) turned out to be radically false we should therefore expect that present science, despite its apparent success, will turn out to be radically false as well."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that Dark Matter theory is wrong, I'm just saying that its only as good as our ability to gather and interpret data. The theory makes complete sense to me and is in fact pretty common sense. Most stars are dwarf stars (80-90%), which are too dim to be detected; therefore basing the mass of a galaxy from visible stars alone is rather short sighted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which could be wrong for all we know

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you just implied right and wrong don't exist. Why are you using that word now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't mean I can't use the words right or wrong (or make absolute statements), it just means that that I'm not asserting something as absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

[warri0r45]

I was indoctrinated from birth, actually. And the other 1000's of religions are wrong, to put it simply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

still waiting for ghostranger to answer why he says this. either say its an opinion or tell my why you believe its a statement of fact.

[Futurama]

Hahah, christianity isn't as cretinous as you think you know...

 

 

 

What you're thinking of are the strict orthodox christians who believe god is right and that's all there is too it.

 

 

 

I know many people who are technically christians because they were baptised, but none of them even attend church. I used to date a vicar's daughter too, and they're not as dumb as you probably think.

 

 

 

I try to keep an open mind and believe everything can exist in one way or another somewhere, and this could easily exist, but until there's unarguable evidence, just don't like people claming that it does without proof :)