Talk:Dark matter

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Didn't want to put this on the main content page since it's so preliminary, but I thought it was important to note. I have a BS in Physics, so I feel confident in saying it COULD be a big step one way or the other, but this is not my area of expertise so I don't feel confident expounding on its validity. It's being reported on a ton of sites, but I saw it on BBC first so here's the link. also, I've read through the editing guidelines but I'm still new and trying to learn. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong so i can continue to learn. Thanks. Fnarrow 12:26, 3 April 2013 (EDT)

! This article or part thereof was also submitted to CreationWiki. The submitted text was written by me, TerryH, and submitted to CreationWiki, within seven days of its submission here, under the name Temlakos. It does not include contributions made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png

Dark matter 'proof' called into doubt: and Conservative 18:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Would you care to summarize the article or provide a link to the published paper (rather than a summary of the paper)? --Mtur 18:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Here is an article about the so called "dark matter" written by Creation Ministries International: Conservative 20:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Occam's Razor

Einstein and Vulcan is not an example of Occam's Razor. Occam's razor states that new phenomena should not be introduced if existing explanations suffice. Planets were already well-known, so the observations were very plausibly explained by an undiscovered planet. This was the going idea for about 50 years before Einstein came along. Imagine you are in a Newtonian world filled with excitement over continual uncovering of new knowledge of planets. Now here are some observations that seem to suggest a new planet, but there's this crazy physicist nut who says it's due to space itself actually bending. In that case, Occam's razor would suggest that this relativity idea was bogus, because we perceive space as flat and Newtonian physics explains every other observation to the degree of accuracy possible at that time. Thus as additional planet was not a new phenomenon, just another physical entity within the then-known physical framework of the universe, whereas relativity represented an entire reshaping of our understanding of the universe. However, the math of relativity fully explained the orbital anomaly, so that explanation survived. The idea of Vulcan was then discarded because there were no longer any unexplained effects which could accommodate it. It was a questions of alternatives, not additions. Kallium 23:38, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

You ignore the following key point about the Vulcan controversy. An undiscovered planet is one thing, but an undiscovered planet that, while inside the orbit of earth around the sun, still would keep station on the far side of the sun from the earth, is quite another. In inventing this new planet, astronomers seem to have forgotten everything they knew about planets since Johannes Kepler formulated his Laws of Planetary Motion—simply because Vulcan would have violated the most important of these, which is:
How could Vulcan and Earth have had identical orbital periods if Vulcan's mean orbital radius were smaller even than that of Mercury? (And for Vulcan always to remain on the far side of the sun, and hence unobservable from earth, Vulcan and Earth would have had to have the same period.)
In contrast, Einstein provided the simpler explanation: that the astronomers' understanding of the physics of planetary motion was in error, and that the error lay in the understanding of the motion of Mercury, not the motion of any hypothetical planet inside the orbit of Mercury.
Therefore, Occam's Razor did apply. And more to the point, Occam's Razor now descends like the former French National Razor to lop off the head of the dark-matter theory.--TerryHTalk 20:38, 15 January 2009 (EST)