Dark matter a dying theory?

quote:

---

If I'm not mistaken, dark matter is needed in order for the current Big Bang model to account for how the first galaxies/stars formed in the first place.

---

The scientists pursuing alternatives to dark matter don't seem to think that it is that essential. So unless you have some actual evidence...

quote:

---

And I have to disagree with you, because what you quoted does not actually show that ''dark matter discredits one of their arguments'', simply because I see no argument being presented, simply because I see no actual argument being made: they simply state that dark matter is essential to the current BB model (which it is).

---

So you DIDN'T see this: That's not about the Big Bang, it's about the age of the universe.

quote:

---

The fact it does or does not exist changes nothing for creationists.

---

I'd say that it stopped them from arguing that the universe had to be young because the galaxies would have flown apart by now. But OK, if you think that they would go on saying that I'll believe you. Even so, a ready answer makes the argument less effective.

quote:

---

How is the rotational speed of galaxies used by YECs to insist on a young universe ?

​

There are lots of bare assertions on what creationists think in your posts, and this seems to be no exception. I cannot find any support for this and I fail to see how the rotational speed of galaxies could be used as evidence of a young universe.

---

Because the claim that galaxies would fly apart (see above quote) is based on the rotational speed. Odd how you only pick up on that point and don't address all the rest.

quote:

---

Lot's words but not a whole lot of content that's for sure. This is a perfect example of why my participation has been diminishing here, because instead of cutting down to the chase, posts are filled with such space-eating spam about how creationist are liers, and hypocrites, and stupid, etc. etc.

​

Honestly, even though that's what you think, and your convinced this is true. I don't want to hear about it, and I couldn't care less

---

You want an example ? How about the C14 in coal argument. Don't you think that if YECs were aware of the possibility of "finding" something just because they were desperately searching, they would be more worried about the possibility that the trace amounts found were contamination ? Or the "moon dust" argument, which would have found to be false by doing decent research ? Or the population argument ? Or the argument from short-period comets which causes YECs to suggest that the Oort cloud should be rejected ?And don't bother getting on your high horse. You made the insinuations, is it somehow unfair that I turn them around ? And if you make a false assertion in the defence of creationists, am I not permitted to refute it ?If you want a forum where creationists - and only creationists - are protected against criticism this isn't the place for you. Admin does not want that sort of bias written into the rules. Criticisms of both sides are equally permitted. So if you want to make your insinuations then you have to be prepared to have them turned back on you.

http://www.desy.de/...Physics/Relativity/GR/dark_matter.htmlExplains it pretty well in layman terms. The age of the universe comes directly from the Big Bang model. Any evidence against the theoretical age derived from a BB model is evidence against this BB model Except that they never made the argument that the speed of the galaxies was evidence the earth was young. Even some creationist cosmologies have galaxies living millions of years in their reference frame so if they ever used that argument, it would sort of backfire.The closest I can think of is the argument (not often used, mind you) that the galaxies must be young because the arms would have spiraled much more then they have. But that's not what we're talking about here What I think is bad debate is the fact that you did not refute it, you simply asserted that they used it (the see-what-you-wanna-see phenomenon) as an excuse for being hypocrites without any basis.There was nothing negative about what I said about evolutionists when they approach the evidence. I did not insinuate anything, I directly stated that this phenomenon applied to equally to everyone, including evolutionists and creationists. Except that the only person who insinuated anything was you: you insinuated that the only reason creationists were more verbal about this phenomenon was so that they could use it as an excuse for being hypocrites.Avoid any form of misrepresentation is a forum guideline

quote:

---

http://www.desy.de/...Physics/Relativity/GR/dark_matter.html

​

Explains it pretty well in layman terms.

---

So you've got an article last updated in 1993 which seems to only use Big Bang theory to estimate the amount of baryonic matter in the universe. It's not clear how essential this is to the theory, so it doesn't really support your claim. More interestingly, even if it did you would be put into the position of arguing against the existence of baryonic dark matter, which hasn't really been discussed here or arguing that there was too much of it. So it really isn't that helpful to you.

quote:

---

The age of the universe comes directly from the Big Bang model. Any evidence against the theoretical age derived from a BB model is evidence against this BB model

---

Which doesn't change the fact that they are directly arguing for a young universe.

quote:

---

Except that they never made the argument that the speed of the galaxies was evidence the earth was young. Even some creationist cosmologies have galaxies living millions of years in their reference frame so if they ever used that argument, it would sort of backfire.

---

I guess you didn't understand the quote then. And why should they be reluctant to argue against some creationist cosmologies in favour of a result that suits them far more ? Evidence of a young universe is more use to them than explaining away the evidence of age.

quote:

---

What I think is bad debate is the fact that you did not refute it, you simply asserted that they used it (the see-what-you-wanna-see phenomenon) as an excuse for being hypocrites without any basis.

---

That is pretty misleading. You were the one who claimed that creationists were more aware of the alleged phenomenon. I simply pointed out that they did not seem to apply that awareness in their own work. The conclusion of hypocrisy requires both to be true. And while we're talking about evidence, I have now at least referred to evidence that creationists do not employ solid quality control in their work - the arguments are well enough known that I don't think any more is needed. You've provided none for your assertions at all.

quote:

---

There was nothing negative about what I said about evolutionists when they approach the evidence. I did not insinuate anything, I directly stated that this phenomenon applied to equally to everyone, including evolutionists and creationists.

---

More accurately you seemed upset when I pointed out that it applied to creationists and tried to imply that they handled it better. But producing no evidence at all, even now.

quote:

---

Except that the only person who insinuated anything was you: you insinuated that the only reason creationists were more verbal about this phenomenon was so that they could use it as an excuse for being hypocrites.

---

As explained above, that isn't true. What I said is that if creationist awareness of the "phenomena" is restricted to criticising arguments from the other side, they are being hypocrites. Now you used it in that way, and you've provided zero evidence of creationists applying it in any other way, while I have provided examples where they creationists failed to apply it. If you want to retract your claim of creationists being more aware of the problem, then that's fine by me.

quote:

---

Avoid any form of misrepresentation is a forum guideline

---

And one you have violated a number of times in this discussion. Maybe you should make more of an effort to follow it.

You want me to explain it again? Why? It was all there in simple English in my Message 80 that you replied to. You managed to quote almost the only part of the message that wasn't part of that explanation.Anyway, one more time, but more briefly and forcefully, no English speaking person in their right mind would ever call a belief that a pot on the stove would boil as an educated guess or a hypothesis. That you used this example means you seriously misunderstand both terms, which are not synonyms anyway.Capisce?Why are you trying to denigrate "hypothesis" by defining it as an educated guess? Is it that you want to be able to say something like, "A hypothesis is just an educated guess, so when scientists are hypothesizing they're really just guessing."It isn't like there isn't some degree of commonality, but they are not synonyms. Look them up. Why are you so intent on misexpressing yourself in English?My advice is to figure out what you're trying to say in terms that you and your opponents both understand in the same way, then express yourself in those terms as clearly as possible. Quit playing word definition games.--Percy

Well, we know you think so. Your message is quite a labyrinth of rationale - I think I'm going to leave it alone. If you've managed to persuade yourself, fine.Tesla claimed no one was investigating alternatives to matter as the explanation for dark matter. Turns out that's wrong.You can resume playing word games now.--Percy

The article points out that to produce the universe we observe, the Big Bang would have to produce a certain amount of matter. Since visible Baryonic matter only represents a small percentage of that amount, it is assumed the discrepency is solved by dark matter.But if dark matter turns out not to exist, or not in such a large quantity, then the current Big Bang model would be falsified and require significant revision. You are misrepresenting their intentions, it has nothing to do with what ''suits them'' or doesn't. This is what I said:

quote:

---

This phenomenon applies to everyone, there are no exceptions. And it does not apply more or less to creationists. The only difference, is that it seems to be that creationists at least are more aware of it.

---

I clearly stated that it does not apply less to creationists. In other words, I would certainly expect examples where this has been the case from creationist. Obviously, if I acknowledged from the unset that it applied to creationist just as well, this cannot be the source of me being upset (in any case, it was more of a general rant then anything specific to this one discussion)

I did read your message, but it does not contain the answer to this specific quesiton, simply because it contains an example of an educated guess (predicting where your wife will be) and a fact (looking on the gps), but it failed to highlight the supposed substantial distinction between eduacted guess and hypothesis. I used that example for the purpose of simplicity: putting a pot on the stove is frequently used example to represent ''the Scientific Experiment''. I repeated many times that saying a hypothesis is an educated guess isn't a negative thing, so I am not tryign to denigrate anything.But the truth is, when faced with an unknown phenomenon in his lab, the scientist will use his knowledge to propose a tentative explanation for the phenomenon. There is nothing wrong with calling this an educated guess, even though in science it is referred to as a hypothesis.In no way am I saying this just to say ''scientists are just guessing''. And the best way to do this, is to use the terms in the way they are defined by the dictionnary. This is much more efficient then both having the same, but wrong, definitions.This is exactly what happened with the 'dark matter' quibble. You defined it in such a way that it included modified laws of physics and effects of extra dimensions, when it clearly was not how it was defined by anyone else, especially in the scientific community. When I pointed out that you were wrong to defined it in such a misleading way, you responded to me with ''if you like'', instead of simply saying ''Ok I was wrong''.

quote:

---

The article points out that to produce the universe we observe, the Big Bang would have to produce a certain amount of matter. Since visible Baryonic matter only represents a small percentage of that amount, it is assumed the discrepency is solved by dark matter.

---

More accurately,it says that the universe we observe must HAVE a certain amount of mass. Obviously the discrepancy must be solved by dark matter. If you want to deny the existence of dark matter, you must reject the estimate of the total mass.

quote:

---

But if dark matter turns out not to exist, or not in such a large quantity, then the current Big Bang model would be falsified and require significant revision.

---

Are you suggesting that if the estimate of the total amount of mass in our universe should turn out to be wrong, we should keep the estimate and throw out the Big Bang theory instead ? Because failing to find enough dark matter would falsify the estimated mass, which does not appear to be derived from the Big Bang theory.

quote:

---

You are misrepresenting their intentions, it has nothing to do with what ''suits them'' or doesn't.

---

You are the one trying to argue that they couldn't have made the argument that they did in fact make. I am simply pointing out that contrary to your assertions they did have a reasonable motive, and that you were wrong to say that the argument would backfire. And you cannot rule that out by cries of misrepresentation.

quote:

---

I clearly stated that it does not apply less to creationists. In other words, I would certainly expect examples where this has been the case from creationist.

---

And you clearly stated that creationists were "more aware of it" which means that they should make greater efforts to avoid it. The evidence is that they do not. That is why we have so many PRATTs.

quote:

---

Obviously, if I acknowledged from the unset that it applied to creationist just as well, this cannot be the source of me being upset (in any case, it was more of a general rant then anything specific to this one discussion)

---

Yet you clearly intended to imply that creationists handled it better, and equally clearly you cannot make a case that they do, or even that YECs in particular are not especially susceptible to the " phenomenon".

Hi Slevesque,If it makes you feel better to say I'm wrong to use the term dark matter in the way I do then go right ahead, but it doesn't change the meaning of anything I said, and I think everyone, including you, understood what I said. Let me say it again in a way you'll be happier with, but it doesn't change anything:The discussion in this thread revealed that scientists are exploring possibilities beyond dark matter to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation.--Percy

Hi Slevesque,I did some more research and I have more time now, so I'll reply again but a bit more completely this time.First, in the interest of precision, clarity and honesty I should state unequivocally that you are correct and I was wrong about the definition of dark matter. Dark matter refers only to hypotheses of galactic rotational anomalies that involve matter.But second, this is important only if your interest is terminological precision. All the information I provided about dark matter hypotheses and alternative hypotheses was correct, plus lumping all the hypotheses under the dark matter label is convenient, is often done, and confuses no one.About your "pot on the stove" example being a simple representative of a scientific experiment and a hypothesis, I think that's fine. But if you are actually interested in terminological precision then when talking about science I suggest you use the terminology of science. In other words, say "hypothesis" and not "educated guess," otherwise you'll make those on the science side nervous because it looks a lot like creationist arguments about how scientists are really only guessing and making assumptions.--Percy

Electric universe has triumphed... Again....Dark matter theory and it's advocates are proven to be frauds again, quite honestly we really need to strip these people of their tenure and lavish government paychecks and start making way for Wallace Thornhills and Eric Lerners out there.For every Ph. D there is an equal and opposite Ph.DProof of superior EU sciencehttp://thunderbolts.info.spam/online_videos.htmEdited by Admin, : Spamify the link.

I would recommend you unsuspend me and despamify my link. Just showed up and the forum admins are eager to show how incompetent they areEdited by Orrery21, : No reason given.Edited by Orrery21, : iPad auto word entry messes up sometimes

Sorry, you sure looked like a spammer. Next time you join an on-going discussion try to make it clear how your point fits into the discussion. This thread is about dark matter.Also, please don't violate the Forum Guidelines by posting bare links or by making unsupported assertions of fraud.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The difference is right there in your description. The difference is the testable nature of the proposal, and then the test itself. A hypothesis is a TESTABLE PROPOSAL, not an educated guess. It isn't accurate, either. If they are one in the same in your eyes then why not use the term that all scientists use: hypothesis.As to dark matter, scientists are proposing testable explanations, and then testing those explanations. That makes it a scientific hypothesis.

It would seem to me that supermassive blackholes at the center of galaxies suffer the same "problems" that dark matter suffers from. You can't directly observe a black hole because they do not radiate light. However, they do have a strong gravitational field. When you map the movements of stars in the center of the Milky Way they are all orbiting around a single point, but no luminous matter can be observed at this single point. When you calculate the mass needed to produce these orbits you find that only an object with several million solar masses can produce the observed orbits.So would those who argue against dark matter being actual matter also argue against supermassive blackholes (also the result of matter) for the same reasons?