Monday, June 14, 2010

Dark Matter Challenged?

Ah, little does my heart fonder than a good old scientific counter punch on a controversial topic. The article I'm referencing is here on Space.com. And my comments are as follows:

Consider this: What if the premise (theory) by which all other measurements are made is in and of itself, wrong, and that other "ludicrous" ideas might actually have merit, but are ignored? Just something to chew on.

Anyway, a quote form the article interests me. "Yet other astronomers, particularly those who first analyzed the WMAP results, remain unconvinced."

Well of course they are. If they were convinced they were wrong, their funding would stop and they'd all have to find another gravy train to study on. As altruistic as I'd like scientists to be, money still drives the boat, especially in today's world, so you don't bite the hand that feeds you...or at least you allow that hand to blind you just enough to conflicting data that you hold steadfast to your position.

I'm not saying astrophysicist Tom Shanks of Durham University in England is right or wrong (although I personally can't stand this Dark Matter/Energy dogma), but I do like his position that he hopes future measurements of the microwave background radiation from new telescopes will help clear up the issue. At least he's not saying, "We're right. You're wrong."

3 comments:

Jerry M. Weikle said...

Yet, Douglas, isn't that the very nature of science? Science is about the exploration and study, the various ideas or hypothesis and even the theories that develop into laws.

It is interesting that something within the data has cause new questions to arise and to be considered. What was occuring before the "Dark Energy/Matter" debate and study began? We had, apparently, a Universe that was expanding because of the energy released in during the Big Bang. Eventually, gravity would balance out the expansion and the contraction would begin. Dark Energy/Matter idea's came along and the expansion was to continue, even if that was several trillion years and everything became isolated into small pockets of galaxies.

Now the scientific community has to go back, reexamine and collect more data. The cognitive shift of thought, occurs during examining data and events.

Yet, who knows maybe there was some malfunction with one of the sensors that is collecting the data, and this is a marginal error of sometype.

Norman Copeland said...

Really Douglas, I think that Plato and other earlier philosophers and astronomer's didn't explain why they thought the world was flat.

It perhaps had something to do with the food thay ate.

For an American considering English science, that could perhaps be funny.

Douglas Mallette said...

Norman - They didn't have to explain it. They proved it with math. That, at least then, was explanation enough.