Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronot
I find this thread to be among the more interesting on the board lately.
|
This is a fun thread. While we are all patiently waiting for Soup, do you mind if I poke at his claim a little?
"Dark Matter" can also be referred to as a concept: We see the signature of matter where it is not. Since it is used in several ways, several avenues for falsification exist: If we identify baryons we have overlooked in cluster cores, this aspect of DM could be considered falsified. If we find a better explanation for the MOND effect, DM could also be eliminated from the edges of galaxies.
As for the other DM, neutrinos, perhaps we are missing a set of wave equations that provide a better explanation for the conservation of angular momentum in nuclear reactions, but don't bet the ranch on it.
"Dark Energy" represents a reconstruct of general relativity. This concept sits on ice so thin you can see the cracks in it: In Einsteins original paper, DE was added to stablize an unbalanced set of equations, not pull the universe apart.
In the current version, the apparent attenuation of supernovae Ia provide weak supportive evidence. If the increasing sample of high redshift supernova statistically eliminate evidence of cosmic acceleration, dark energy becomes an artifact.
Sorry Soup, I agree with the BA, both of these BB constructs are subject to falsification. The BB is a very rubbery target.