[RascalPuff]

The title of this thread ('Scientists hate coincidences') is excerpted from an article, by Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer, subjecting Dark Matter and Dark Energy, in SPACE.com's weekly Mystery Monday series.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040712.html

The disparity of the title is in the fact that a coincidence in nature very often proffers a deeper meaning worthy of further research and investigation.

An example of a series of apparently unrelated coincidences is in the at-first unrecognized, unanticipated, chain of directly related events, leading from Galileo to Einstein, and which may proceed to the resolution of the present enigma of Dark Matter and Dark Energy...

Galileo demystified Aristotelian thought, by proving that all objects descend at the same rate of acceleration regardless of mass value, in the absence of air resistance. This discovery implied more than a mere, inadvertant 'coincidence'...

Roland Von Eotvos - in searching for the anticipated differences in descent rates - refined this (unanticipated) 'coincidence' by proving that it holds true down to less than a billionth of a second.

Einstein produced the General Theory out of this 'coincidence', finding that inert and heavy mass values are indistinguishable.

When science encounters a 'coincidence', such a finding can alert the observer that there may in fact be some relationship beyond coincidence. It does not have to be an 'embarassing' and 'glaring problem' at all (as Britt calls the conjunction of Dark Matter and Dark Energy); in fact the dilemma apparent, may encompass a solution.

Coincidences therefore should not be detested or underestimated, but instead, focused upon and pursued to resolution which may uncover unforeseen answers.

This thread hopes to inspire the finding of a direct link between - if not an identity within -Dark Matter and Dark Energy, as well as the inclusion of additional historical and contemporary scientific coincidences.

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

"Coincidences therefore should not be detested or underestimated, but instead, focused upon and pursued to resolution which may uncover unforeseen answers."

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Best regards,
- RP

[everymansmedium]

Hello RP:
I agree totally. We only have 2 ways to achieve new knowledge. one is by (trial and error). This is the basis for experimentation, and all measurements. The other is the recognition of a pattern of behavior. This recognition always begins with what we call a coincidence. It is because of examination of these coincidences that we find a pattern.
Though I agree with the need to research these coincidences, I also understand why there is a negative feeling for this observation. This is very likely that the word for opportunity and danger is represented by one symbol in the Chinese language.

Though research into a coincidence may result with new knowledge it can also result with an endless search for something that does not exist. Something that does not exist leaves no marker that tells us when to stop looking.

All research should be done within the limits of logic.
If you keep finding coincidental data till you have a coherent line of data, yet there is still no known pattern that you can connect to. When can you tell when it is time to stop if you keep returning with more coincidences and a longer line of coherent thought, yet still no verification of a real solution? I may be caught in such a loop, then again the results are much too coherent and relevant to walk away from.
John.