skeptik

That's the thread where I first heard of the band, too. F'ing amazing. Hadn't even heard of them before, let alone seen their Brit Award vid. Now I've got it running almost non-stop in a background window when I'm online.

"The concept of dark matter was proposed to explain the motion of stars within galaxies, then later of galaxies within clusters. Specifically because things at those scales didn't seem to jibe with our understanding of orbital mechanics as observed and reinforced in our own solar system. The motion of our own planets was well described before Newton came up with Universal Gravitation as an explanation, and fit (nearly) perfectly with its predictions. Any slight differences between observed planetary orbits and Newtonian mechanics were explained by Einstein. No dark matter needed there."

This is a really well written, if somewhat logically puzzling, piece. I commend you on your knowledge of the history of physics. Really. Its a mostly unknown thing to the greater populace as a whole. However....

First, your implication that Newton's Universal Gravitation theory "fit (nearly) perfectly with [earlier] predictions" is kind of foolish. I mean, of course it fit. He based the entire theory on those observations and predictions. This is one of the flaws of science. Since there is no outside perspective, a mediator outside human perception, if you will, science has only its own word, its own limited observations on which to base itself. Any theory we develop is limited by this, and being so is fundamentally flawed by the very logic science is based on (see any college level Symbolic Logic text) .

This brings me back to the point of my post: that the difference between science and religion on a logically fundamental level are non existant. Science's most common argument against the veracity of Christianity is that it relies entirely on a single document, written by people who set out intentionally to write proof of their beliefs, to justify thier faith. Science, meanwhile, is an institution that, while definitely ascribing to much more rational means of discourse, relies on a series of observations and principles to explain what it has observed, operating under the assumption that the limited scope of its equations and observations have to work. You will accept that as a species that can actually observe only an infintesimally impossible to define amount of space in a constantly expanding universe that this is flawed reasoning.

As for dark matter being used to describe only massive celestial bodies, well we ourselves occupy a universe that exists inside of one of these celestial bodies, and if dark matter accounts for ninety percent of all matter in these bodies, logically it would also account for a hefty percentage of our own small corner of space. This said. wouldn't it imply that our own understanding of planetary motion is flawed, as it does not take into account dark matter and yet functions perfectly?

Once again, this returns to the heart of my post. Science, faced with a clear failing in one of their theories, did not go back and reexamine its own ideas, but rather invented a massive, invisble form without proof of observable phenomena (and yes, I have read the recent articles concerning radio telescopic images of dark matter around two crashing nebulae, I side with the sceptics on that one, as an action at that leve is well beyond our understanding of astrophysics at this point). Me, I can't seperate the difference between the invention of dark matter to explain why our understanding of gravity failed from that of some Christian inventing God to explain why life fails.

Taking all that into account. I do not ascribe to Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hunduism. I studied BioChemistry for four years and have a healthy respect for the sciences. However, as a thinker, I cannot simply accept the state of science as it is. Einstein's theories are unraveling at a rapid pace these days, what with the University of Tokyo demonstrating that the speed of light has degraded over the course of universal history, and the rising support for String Theory, which completely denies the bulk of Einsteinian physics (nothing against Einstein. Brilliant man and without his flawed theories we would not have been able to acheive the understanding we have now). However, I also do not discount any or all of the above mentioned faiths (including science) and am open to believe just about anything in a universe that is constantly expanding, infinitely allowing for more potential, more possibilities.

I would like to see a world without ignorance, and this means that you rather have to embrace a larger amount of viewpoints, not fewer. In the end, the proponents for both science and religion are demanding our attention with why they, and only they, are right. Science may be willing to admit it doesn't have all the answers, but it has a little bit of trouble admitting when its wrong.

Post Script: For further on why theories on massive bodies can be linked to smaller bodies in an infinite amount of recursion, I suggest Richard Feynman's "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom". A beautiful lecture he gave on quantum minutae and why the universe repeats itself infinitely from the quasar to the quark.