Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

a reply to: Mastronaut
Mastronaut, I’m getting a kick out of the back-n-forth going on between you and a couple other members. A healthy skepticism is essential to advancing good science. However, skepticism for it’s own sake can also serve as a hindrance to progress.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that you’re guilty of over-skepticism. You’ve made some very valid points in this discussion, and seem more intelligent than that. The scientific community does indeed need to be VERY cautious about accepting unfalsifiable claims that could potentially lead down blind alleys and weaken the foundational structure. That’s what the peer review process is all about. In theory it would seem like the peer review process would serve as a good firewall, but in practice it doesn’t always work that way. The process is riddled with fraud, misconduct, plagiarism and bias. I once read a “scientific” study on scientific studies, and it concluded that “on average” the scientific papers submitted to, and published by, established, leading scientific journals at any given time stood less than a 15% chance of being deemed valid when reviewd 10 years later. In other words, when you read a paper from one of the leading journals there’s more than an 85% chance it’s littered with garbage. Now that’s comforting. Also, the peer review process often dismisses papers that don’t fit comfortably within conventional standards. So, many of the game-changing, outside-the-box solutions are overlooked and lost in the process. This isn’t a newsflash, just a reminder that greater scrutiny (skepticism) is needed to prevent heading down the wrong path.

Be that as it may, it doesn’t mean that completely scrapping the entire body of established science and charting a new course is the best solution to discovering the ultimate truths of nature. If we started all over again, we’d probably just make the same mistakes, only a different data set. Starting over won’t change the fact that we’re still ignorant humans, prone to monumental f---ups. There are a number of theoretical models in place that have endured many years of scrutiny and testing, over and over again. If we’ve got something that works 99.5% of the time, then it’s probably useful and worth hanging on to. It’s not like a single theory or formulation can cover every situation the universe throws at us and be 100% accurate at all times. To expect that would be giving humans way more credit than we’re due. Plus, without mystery, it would take all the fun out of discovery. We just need to be more receptive to new ideas and proposals, even when they don’t fit the mold, and not simply reject them out-of-hand. Personally, I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth; we don't have the brain capacity to comprehend it. We may mess up at times, and take 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but eventually we’ll get a long way (I hope). And if not, we’ve still got smart phones, Facebook, corn dogs and Duck Dynasty to comfort us.

Those responsible for advancing our lot in life are the ones who choose not to follow...

PS: Oh yeah, I agree with intergalactic fire in that we made stuff up. We assigned the terms “dark matter” and “dark energy” to the phenomena because we didn’t have a clue what was behind our observations. Those terms just serve as place holders until we figure out what the hell the other 90% of the universe is all about. When we do have some answers, though, we can then give appropriate names to the culprits. No problem with that...

Everything is a reaction of magnetic force.

A Dark hole is spitting out a huge ring of magnetic energy, A halo if you will.

However, The thing about magnetic energy is it follows a long a lineary path based on how much energy is being pumped in.

A Dark hole may seem like it's *Cold* but it's only cold because nothing escapes it's graps and absorbs all Heat almost Instantly. So when you go about your daily buisness freezing your ass off in Space. You'll know why.

There are many types of Magnetic forces, There is not just * Magnetic Force* As many people seem to think. Logic dictates that all particles rely on Magnetic force. So no. There is no such thing as a *Graviton* That is rediculous. Where would a Graviton come from? And how would gravitons distribution among the surface area? It wouldn't yo cuz thats retarded.

Anyways moving on. Everything is magnetic force, So spooky action can happen Via Magnetic force. How many magnetic forces are there? Well that's a pretty Generic question. The simplified dumbed down version would be 3 basic known concepts Positive Negative and Neutral. But within even just these ranges alone, You can almost define everything in the Universe by these concepts. However there is more than just positive negative and Neutral. Those are just the most prominent binding magetic forces and become weaker with distance. However, There is more to this because if the particles are drawing from power then the magnetic force will increase drawing in more mass. So the wave is already there at the distance it can increase at. It's just what we would describe as weak because there is a larger object tugging at us *Earth* If you were to channel a particle into resonating a specific magnetic frequency that is *Alien* to this planet. You would in theory be creating Ghost action particle, or spooky action particle. Alot of the gravity from Earth comes from the rotating cores. however all the dust on the planet collectely has a magnetic force as well.

There is nothing on this planet that is not *Charged* Even the word *Charged* relies on magnetic force to even become a possibility as *Charged* Is not exactly *Elect* or the word tied to electricity. There is more than Electricity friends.

There is Protoricity and Neutralicity. lol Not the actual names. It is possible to create a System that runs completely on Neutrons, Or protons. Pretty much anything that can turn into * Energy* we use converts. Certain materials in order to draw upon *electricity* However there is other forms of matter as well. Take for instance the Sun, The sun is a giant collection of Neutrons. It's quite amazing. Imagine harnessing the power of the sun in our machines. Rather than the weak impute of the *Electric* Misnomer.


Dark energy is exactly what it is. Black.
It's made from duded particles. Sure some stars aand asteroids are swallowed. But the Galaxy does not feed on just that.
As explain the universe has to low of mass to sustain a black hole. Not by itself anyways the black hole would need a boost. And also the distance of mass between the black hole is rilant on the *weak* force if you wanna call it that. There is a point once you reach an inner ring of magnetic energy where *Gravity* If you will increases. You can call it the Event Horizon. That's where the pressure is at it's strongest But it's not exactly an Event Horizon it's just a line you pass and the Suction power increases. You can still get out however if you go any closer You might reach the 3rd ring then be destroyed lol.


Matter only generates a hologram of what is there, Real matter is so Tiny we cannot see it yet. It spins and revolves around each other at such high speeds it generates surface area greater than the size of the particles itself. So when particles dud from Entropy and losing energy. They cease to Exist almost, They just stop vibrating. So a lot of the Universe is Filled with Duded or Expired matter. Black holes suck all that up and that is how they remain Open. Matter just happens to develop around a black hole after that happens. However there really wasn't one chain that started it all. Because Dark holes rely on other black holes in order to Exist. So all Existing matter had to come from a precurser.

BUT Dark energy is also Dark matter.Dark matter is only a high concentration of Dark energy. they are one in the same except that there is is so much dark energy in a present area it becomes the majority of the visible mass since it gains a type of density because it is so compressed to tother dark energy particles.

Dudded materials still have very low magnetic charges, faintest. They all naturally do. It's when a black hole sucks it all in the pressure forces these dud particles to fuse together reguardless of magnetic orientation creating a sphere. This would be the only time that fragments of matter are actually touching each other, Instead of having space inbetween them. However the magnetic charge does not align north west south east, since each fragment is not aligned properly *Since the black hole sqeezes all matter as it pleases* it just melds into basically a weak particle sort of. It can't really interact with much since theres no sub atomic particles in this case. And it itself does not act like one either. Not naturally anyways.

Since the shards in a dark energy particle cannot free themselves, The energy from fighting builds up. This is how Energy is made. And There is no other Alternative. Energy is Created this way This is how physical matter is recycled and how it comes back into existance. Eventually the charges become so strong that the particle just Snaps and shoots all these shards off into space which recombine later on into sub-atomic particles, Like electrons ect. These shards would be extremely pointy lol and flying around in space without protection you might go blind but the particles are super charged. And they pool towards the outer rimms of dark holes carried by the magnetic currents. Contained within the rings or *Halos*. Even if all the galaxies where to mysteriously disappear Dark Energy would still exist and would expand into galaxies xD

a reply to: intergalactic fire

So short, yes they made stuff up, just so that the model would still be correct.
Did they ever had in mind that maybe the model is wrong?

Well you see, the job of scientists is to produce an explanations for their observations. They saw what looked like missing mass and they needed an explanation for it. Some scientists did question the model used, and thought that modified gravity models would be the solution, but it has been extensively shown that theories like MOND cannot produce reliable models. They didn't just come up with this "dark matter halo" idea on a whim. They looked at the rotation curves and then attempted to find a mass distribution which would explain the observed curves. The gravitational lensing observations only strengthen the halo idea, we can literally map out the huge distribution of dark matter which surrounds galaxies. The picture below is a real example of that process:

How can we miss 95% of the universe.

Why do you have this notion that we should be able to easily see everything in the universe? Particles like the neutrino are so weakly interacting they can pass right through Earth and are very hard to detect. It's not so hard to fathom another type of particle which is even more weakly interacting and doesn't even interact with light. But if you were paying attention the purpose of this thread was to elude to the fact I think dark matter is actually something much stranger than a particle. Furthermore dark matter only accounts for roughly 25% of the energy in the universe. Most of it is dark energy, which is a completely different thing and a whole other subject.

It only exist in the theory. Nothing has been measured or physically observed saying DM exist as a fact.

Did you not read my opening post at all? There are many observations which indicate DM exists. Just because we can't directly see photons being reflected by the DM doesn't mean the DM isn't there, because we can see the gravitational influence it has on the objects near it.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Wow could your understanding of physics be any more wrong...

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I agree, but he has some thing with the point of magnetic fields, I would say electro magnetic fields.

I don't know if you have heard of the bell theory, (I'm not sure if this is exact correct name) it is interesting as it explains a lot of things, like the double slit experiment.

But the bell theory, guy explains, even though the galaxies are for most part flat, the electro magnetic field is not flat, but more bell, bowl shaped. On both poles.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Mastronaut

It takes time, but we'll progress from this dead point we are in, the solution isn't quantum gravity, it's very likely classical. This philosophy of "nature is random" because we don't have a theory that let those parameters emerge rather than being spoon fed is detrimental.

Oh I see now, you're one of those folks still living in the 1920's who believes in the clockwork universe model where everything is completely deterministic and predictable. I'm sorry but the universe is intrinsically probabilistic, there are no hidden variables... and now this thread is going to degrade into an argument about QM in 3, 2, 1...

You have complete faith in the probabilistic nature of the universe and have no doubt about it? I guess this is not exactly a scientific stance. Personally I don't know, I believe not in randomness, but I could be wrong. There is no amount of evidence that can confirm a theory and no amount of data that can exclude a classical theory of the universe.
The problem is that we only embraced ONE direction since the 30s and whatever else wasn't QM is still ridiculed and debunked with preposterous arguments. I don't think this is the legitimate way of doing science, I understand why the resources are driven only on one side, but if the attitude wasn't denigrating people who don't align to mainstream view, there would have been a lot more researchers developing classical models and probably a much more complete classical alternative.

This wasn't to derail the thread into a QM-hate debate, but seeing your reply I must think this thread could be titled "I'll explain you why God is weirder than you thought".

P.S. I'm not a MOND proponent btw, I just used MOND-like as a therm to explain what I meant and in fact I knew I shouldn't have and had just to talk about classical solutions.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks for the insight, S&F.

The problem with dark matter is it's not tangible-it has to be measured or observed via indirect means which isn't much help, if we could find a 'nugget' of dark matter and determine it's mass and other properties then our understanding of the universe could change forever-after all it has been suggested that dark matter makes up the majority of the universe.

But what is dark matter? if it is a WIMP or something else then that could suggest that the standard model is not yet complete.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

How am i wrong? Particles can spin upsidedown left or right.

That can only happen under the influences of Magnetic Energy.

Just applying the word * Mass hass density and so has attractive properties* Is lame and not thinking outside the box.

Magnetic rings Black holes

Heres a no brainer, Hows an atom collider, Particle collider, Particle ( Excellerator) made?

Is it made with gravitons? Or magnets?

originally posted by: netbound
a reply to: Mastronaut
Mastronaut, I’m getting a kick out of the back-n-forth going on between you and a couple other members. A healthy skepticism is essential to advancing good science. However, skepticism for it’s own sake can also serve as a hindrance to progress.

As I said, I'm not a scientist so I prefer to play the devil's advocate because I don't have any career at stake for having a counter opinion.
I apologize if it seemed that I meant "I'm right they are wrong, abandon QM, DM, DE and BB". I strongly believe there is a need to research in both areas because there are big deficiencies in the only way it is done today.
I think a lot of people consider a sacrilege just to discuss scientifical any classical theory because it would invalidate about 90 years of scientific development and would put a lot of careers at risk.

I also apologize because I didn't want to derail the thread too much, in fact it all started with a kind-of-a-joke where I wanted to underline the need to be more skeptic about exotic things.

There is only one thing for sure and is current theories will be "laughed at" in the future. Every breakthrough has been "laughed at" before it became mainstream and then "laughed at" after it was surpassed. This is not a scientific attitude, but it's what humans have done since.. forever.
I just hope I'll be alive when the next paradigm shift will happen. Who knows what will be the new direction? Nobody can NOW, but I'm pretty sure it won't come from the mainstream for the simple fact that it woldn't be a paradigm shift.

Be that as it may, it doesn’t mean that completely scrapping the entire body of established science and charting a new course is the best solution to discovering the ultimate truths of nature. If we started all over again, we’d probably just make the same mistakes, only a different data set. Starting over won’t change the fact that we’re still ignorant humans, prone to monumental f---ups. There are a number of theoretical models in place that have endured many years of scrutiny and testing, over and over again. If we’ve got something that works 99.5% of the time, then it’s probably useful and worth hanging on to. It’s not like a single theory or formulation can cover every situation the universe throws at us and be 100% accurate at all times. To expect that would be giving humans way more credit than we’re due. Plus, without mystery, it would take all the fun out of discovery. We just need to be more receptive to new ideas and proposals, even when they don’t fit the mold, and not simply reject them out-of-hand. Personally, I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth; we don't have the brain capacity to comprehend it. We may mess up at times, and take 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but eventually we’ll get a long way (I hope). And if not, we’ve still got smart phones, Facebook, corn dogs and Duck Dynasty to comfort us.

I agree, there is no need to restart from scratch collectively. The need is for parallel work of revisionism, who will do that is up to individuals, as long as they won't be censored and ridiculed.
It's really hard to see real scientific debate when some people are in a dominant position and others are seen as clowns. In general it ends up with a party starting to use strawman arguments and ad-hoc explainations supported by authority or consensus rather than raw data or logical thinking.

Science is not an economical thing, we should treat science with a military approach it: they reasearch in a very wide range regardless of prejudices.
But in the end the reason to only have ONE direction is a matter of money flow into researches and academic titles.

a reply to: Mastronaut

Ahh i'm an armchair theorist myself.

a reply to: Mastronaut
A non-scientist claiming to know what is wrong with science and how to do it better. LMAO.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Forgive me, but that really does remind me of an upside down starship Enterprise!

Btw, great thread

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Hello ChaoticOrder

I posted this on another thread but I felt it was also very relevant to this thread as well. I have reposted it for you to ponder.

It explains dark matter very well I think. It is quite a long read but necessary to compress a lot of information into a very small space.

If you can get your head around the concept of seven distinct dimensions, each divided into seven sub-planes.

Infinite primordial space and primordial energy (zero point) creates monads. (monads could be viewed as strings for better understanding of the concept) as they are the smallest discreet indestructible particles of matter. (the smallest building blocks of the universe)

The monads are released, spinning into inter-dimensional space, excited by the source (primordial-zero point energy) and passes through the seven distinct dimensions. You have to visualise that the monad is not moving through physical space, but through inter-dimensional space, so it arrives in the physical dimension in the same physical place it started, seven higher dimensional layers away.

If you could view it as it arrives in the physical plane, it would appear to manifest out of nowhere.

When it appears in the physical plane, it is a monad surrounded by a mass of other monads that simultaneously exist in all seven dimensions, but only the physical monads can be viewed objectively.

A quick summary, every monad is composed of multi-dimensional matter, but science is only able to detect with equipment such as the LHC, a tiny fraction of the monad as a component part of a particle (a particle is composed of many monads).

The Higgs field,to put it simply, IS our physical dimension.

So,science can only detect the part which exists in our physical dimension. The tip of an iceberg would be a good metaphor to visualise it.

If you imagine an arch with each foot of the arch in the first dimension (zero point) and the apex of the arch in seventh dimension (the physical dimension). The apex is the furthest point the monad can travel through inter-dimensional space, before it curves back into the higher dimensions.

The monads density is due to being surrounded with multi-dimensional monads, which limits its ability to vibrate, causing us to perceive the aggregated monads as solid matter. The vibrational state for monads in each of the higher dimensions, becomes increasingly faster and we can only sense them as photons of light, and only then in a very limited way.

It is worth mentioning at this point, that because all particles of matter are connected through each of the seven dimensions (49 if you count the sub dimensions), Gravity is a consequence of electro-magnetic attraction through multi-dimensional space and accounts for its apparent weakness.

As monads approach the physical world from the sixth dimension through to the seventh,the accumulated density of the monad causes it to spiral. There are seven discrete types of monads determined by the ratio of primordial zero point energy, primordial matter and its consciousness potential. These seven types of monad,each manifest into the physical dimension in distinctly different ways, and form a variety of aggregates once manifested.

Those aggregates are then recognisable by science as proton, neutrons and electrons. Each component of an atom is an aggregate, formed from millions of monads.

To understand the forming of aggregates (even the sub-atomic particles of an atom), you could visualise the monads attractions to each other the same way as we view aggregated gases attracting to each other during the formation of stars.

I emphasise, that it is not gravity as defined by science, but gravity as expressed as an electromagnetic energy scaled down through several dimensions of space. The exact same process in the micro, as in the macro but instead of forming stars, it is forming protons, neutrons and electrons.

There is only one kind of energy (zero point), which expresses itself differently, depending on how it scales up or down through the various dimensions.

The entire cosmos is composed of just conscious matter (monads), in constant motion (energy).

The point where monads form aggregates in physical matter,could be described as the 'event horizon' between quantum physics and the standard model of particle physics.

Aggregates appear in the physical world as etheric matter, then densifies into gases,which,then go on to form protogalaxies, and the fairly well understood process of star formation. What is not so well understood is dark matter and dark energy. They are the same thing, but are at different stages of manifestation. Dark matter is unaggregated monads in etheric form which are continuously circulating into and out of our physical dimension.

You could describe a Star as being an ‘elements factory’, because it is through this intense heat and pressure that primordial and nobel gasses combine and reform, to to create the complex table of elements catalogued by science.

If you remember, each monad is a component of multi-dimensional matter, and there is a constant flow of monads, traveling inter-dimensionally, filling up a globe into primordial space like a balloon filling with air.

Our recognisable cosmos is a finite globe of manifested matter, sitting in a sea of infinite primordial space. This exerts a constant pressure, pushing physical aggregates away (stars, galaxies) to make room for new incoming monads (dark matter) and the cosmic globe continues to build up to a finite size. There is no infinite expansion. There is a natural boundary governed by laws of physics not yet fully understood.

This filling up with monads, explains the observed expansion of the cosmos. The cause was not a big bang so much as a constant ooze from higher dimensional planes. Although matter can manifest anywhere in the cosmos, I suspect there are some point sources in the centre of each galaxy, where massive volumes of matter pertaining to each galaxy, is created and dissolved through inter-dimensional space at those places.

Once the finite cosmos has been built out,matter, through entropy over trillions of years, simply dissolves into etheric matter and returns,on it’s journey back down through the higher dimensional planes to again become zero point energy. When the cycle is complete the process starts over from the beginning.

I should point out, that all this takes place in infinite primordial space, and that there are infinite cosmoses repeating the same process at various stages of building up and dissolving away.

That explanation by the way was first presented by Pythagoras 2600 yrs which I have interpreted for this post, it was already ancient knowledge when he got to hear about it. It has been passed down as esoteric knowledge ever since.

Hello ChaoticOrder!

Excellent post. A little bit about myself: I did aerospace engineering in college and while there I took some basic astrophysics courses. Physics was obviously a crucial aspect of my studies. I also like to read and study on my own on various topics relating to the sciences, including dark matter, QM, string theory, loop quantum gravity, the standard model etc... Although I don't claim to be an expert in those topics. I just like to read and try to understand what is being said.

With that being said, I'd now like to ask some questions about physics itself that I don't have a good understanding of that maybe you can explain to me. Does size affect the governing rules of a given system? Atoms dont experience gravity like we do or do they? I'd figure there are different "local" forces that affect the body in question. Does the same apply for giant bodies and sizes or distances? Are there different "local" forces that exert different rules to apply relative to what we experience because of the sizes, distances, and velocities that we normally deal with?

a reply to: intrptr

The rings of Saturn are thought to be corralled into position by shepherd moons, which buffet smaller bits and pieces than themselves, into a more stable orbit.

Where dark matter is concerned, I find myself wondering if half the trouble physicists have with dark matter, might come from a perspective and expectation problem. When they observe a distant galaxy using gravitational lensing, they presume that they ought to expect to see some effect or other that they are not seeing, or are seeing an effect that they should not be.

However, what if dark matter, rather than bunching up around the CENTRE of a dense object, actually bunches up in large amounts around the edge of its area of influence? For example, what if dark matter collects AROUND the edges of the Milky Way, at the edge of the galactic centres area of influence over its local space? All things in this galaxy are beholden in terms of their course to one extent or another, to that centre after all, and the giant density at the core.

Perhaps smaller amounts collect around the other individual areas of density within the galaxy?

It is interesting in any case.

a reply to: TrueBrit

However, what if dark matter, rather than bunching up around the CENTRE of a dense object, actually bunches up in large amounts around the edge of its area of influence? For example, what if dark matter collects AROUND the edges of the Milky Way, at the edge of the galactic centers area of influence over its local space?

That is interesting. I don't have links but some astrophysicists have somewheres suggested that the matter outside our known solar system may extend a lot further than we think. Each time we develop better instruments for resolving we see another "Ort" something out there. Should apply to Galaxies as well.

The other theory I have read somewheres which I also don't have a link for is that space is so vast that the matter comprised of dust and energetic particles between Galaxies is greater in mass than Galaxies themselves. Its just that its spread so thin we don't resolve it with our instruments.

Dark Matter because no light shines upon it. We can't see it directly but we know it is there. I think its a combination of these things, the total number of unseen singularities, the mass contained within all of them and the matter between galaxies all add up… I won't go into the spiritual, the other, other 'dark' matter.

a reply to: OOOOOO

Indeed he has some interesting points. But if, like his theory says, a whole galaxy acts like a giant magnet, I can't seem to fit in that black hole.

Never heard of the bell theory, but it sounds a bit like the experiments from David LaPoint.

Isn't it possible that electricity and magnetism is the outcome/product of something else and magnetism doesn't contain a field but it's rather some sort of radiation?

Soooo iv not been to ATS for a long time, it was for multiple reasons, though it is interesting how the names change but the general philosophy of "Scientists are all idiots and its all the same as religion/alternative theories need more respect, while the whole time speaking very disrespectfully of the MS"

This aside, many of the ideas and preconceptions of how the scientific community are, are wrong. Dark Matter as a subject is very much wide open to new ideas and theories. I think i have invoked this diagram 3 or 4 times now, which is pretty funny, but hey ill do it again.



Isn't that lovely? What it basically says that the field is very much open, the reason for peoples impression that the WIMP is the only solution, is simply because it is currently the easiest and the most scientifically supported theory, when i say easiest, that is not really the case because it is actually extremely difficult to do. I know first hand because I am one of these people who gets up at some ungodly hour to go deep deep underground to build the detectors attempting to discover or get the chance to discover dark matter. If you read an article in the media, the article will sound very one sided, it is natural, regardless of if it is scientific or not. So you are left with the impression that we believe in our theories and want to tell you nothing else is possible.

The reality is that we are very open to the possibilities of alternatives. Though we have to search in our own way... otherwise nothing would get done and we would sit around just pondering into the sky and achieve very little.

So supersymmetry has not been seen (yet) at CERN, does not mean it is ruled out. What you need to know about those theories is that supersymmetry has its own mess of types and forms. What was ruled out is the existence of supersymmetric particles (at least the lightest ones) at the energy reach of CERN. There is still very comfortable room for the theories to still work. Some, but not all become difficult sure, but there are still those that are healthy. The reason it is not talked about so much is because the media is ever critical of science and so many people have just said "It doesn't exist" rather than correctly stating "It is beyond our energy reach" I mean, the LHC is the newest, best machine, and we are already complaining? so thats why in a very cut down version.

On the experiement i work for we are looking for WIMPs, we are just one experiment out of many, and hopefully we will be one of, if not, the first ever tonne scale experiment. If all goes well, we will have one of the cleanest places in terms of radio purity, in the world within our detector, and be able to push the current limits better within the first 2-3 months of operation...

So its a good time to watch this space, but also always a good time to look at the theories and figure out if they are the good ones or the bad. What we have now is not some religious cult, but something that doubts almost every step of the way. We love to find holes and things wrong in the theories, which is contrary to popular belief.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Mastronaut
A non-scientist claiming to know what is wrong with science and how to do it better. LMAO.

So your reasoning is just about authority? Because you know, the only thing we can be sure of is that current theories will be considered wrong in the future... So at least not pretending that models ARE reality might be a safe way to do science.