Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but since we're discussing the literal grand scheme of things a 10% discrepancy only looks good because the previous discrepancy was 100+ orders of magnitude. It's still a significant variance, and the extent of its improvement only underscores the fact previous estimates covered a range just shy of the set of all numbers, which still inspires little confidence.
You don't have the background or context to decide how significant it is. The fact that it's a preliminary result means it will probably decrease quite a bit as we get more results. If it doesn't, that's when it matters.
I've stated my reasons: It was a problem with the particle zoo in the '50s and '60s, and again with GUTs in the '80s and '90s (and to some extent, I believe, remains one). Those are just the recent/contemporary examples a layman can quickly cite. It wasn't something banished with geocentrism and other superstitions during the Age of Reason as you previously suggested. It's ultimately a problem of human psychology that I don't think can be evolved past in a few centuries. Ideas are more readily disseminated now, and to that extent more likely challenged, but man himself has changed little if any. We're still susceptible to the same institutional and disciplinary errors, even where particular institutions and actors have given way to others.
No, those are examples when people did "question the canon." If it didn't happen fast enough for you, well... tough.
None I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean no accurate ones of which NO ONE is aware exist. See my reply to your last response on GUTs.
I'm not saying we should ignore the best extant theory that fits the evidence to pursue hypothetical better ones, I'm just saying we should keep our eyes open for them as we evaluate existing theories, and for flaws experiment and observation indicate in those theories that should spur us to look for others. If an existing theory consistently matches the data we're seeing obviously we should stick with it for as long as that remains so, but not automatically EXPECT it to remain so, or confine investigation of the "dreaded anomaly" to ways we can reconcile it with our favorite theory.

There are no real indications that the field as a whole is not keeping its eyes open etc., so obsessing over it is not worthwhile.
My problem is that people did more than that: One group of people came up with a hypothesis and, before it was proven or even tested, another group of people came up with ANOTHER hypothesis based on the first. They took a very new and completely untested theory for granted, and made it the foundation of an even newer one. It worked out in the end, and that's great but, IMHO, science shouldn't encourage building a house of cards.
So now you're the hypothesis thought police?
Exciting video about the universe
28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM
- 1264 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect.
28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM
- 966 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter.
28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM
- 909 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
- 848 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM
- 950 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
- 885 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
- 790 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM
- 812 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM
- 911 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
- 987 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM
- 827 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM
- 784 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM
- 865 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM
- 786 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM
- 860 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM
- 812 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
- 1019 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
- 831 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
- 899 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM
- 1149 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM
- 1142 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
- 851 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM
- 970 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM
- 938 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM
- 927 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM
- 893 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM
- 1063 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM
- 831 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM
- 1122 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
- 733 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
- 1080 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
- 857 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
- 1155 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM
- 967 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM
- 1200 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
- 973 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99)
28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM
- 1278 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry.
29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
- 834 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
- 825 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
- 964 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
- 774 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
- 1300 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM
- 815 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM
- 1028 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM
- 936 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM
- 1122 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM
- 851 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM
- 1102 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM
- 850 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM
- 804 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
- 764 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
- 867 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM
- 817 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM
- 984 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM
- 952 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at
29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM
- 790 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two.
30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM
- 872 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly
30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM
- 774 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely.
02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM
- 948 Views