Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8105 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 11:33 AM
222 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,611 Year: 19,452/28,606 Month: 2,723/2,305 Week: 365/563 Day: 21/108 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Dark matter a dying theory?
SecondPeterThreeFive
Junior Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 106 of 113 (621916)
06-29-2011 3:19 PM


When the galaxy rotations did not fit the evolutionary model, instead of questioning the evolutionary model (dogma must not be challenged), "Dark Matter" was invented to explain away the problem.

Conveniently, Dark Matter, by definition, is unobservable, except for the effects it supposedly creates.

The first time I read about Dark Matter I recognized it as obviously circular reasoning, except that it is not so obvious to the evolutionists who wanted to believe in something they could not see.

So now, some posters to this thread are not even sure DM is matter after all, but they are absolutely certain it exists, whatever it is (sounds like "faith" to me).


Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Catholic Scientist, posted 06-29-2011 3:32 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded
 Message 108 by Coyote, posted 06-29-2011 3:36 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2011 3:52 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9297
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 107 of 113 (621918)
06-29-2011 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 3:19 PM


(sounds like "faith" to me).

Trying to "bring down" a scientific pursuit to being on the same level as faith, is only insulting faith, itself. The whole "see, you guys are using faith too" argument makes faith look bad. As a christian I ask you to stop that.

When the galaxy rotations did not fit the evolutionary model, instead of questioning the evolutionary model (dogma must not be challenged), "Dark Matter" was invented to explain away the problem.

There is no "evolutionary model" that acts as dogma to cosmologists who theorize about dark matter. Why do you think there is?

The fact that dark matter was invented is a challange to the previous theory that didn't include it, so what we're seeing is revision as opposed to clutching onto dogma.

So now, some posters to this thread are not even sure DM is matter after all, but they are absolutely certain it exists, whatever it is

Enormous amounts of matter are having to be held together through gravitational frorces from something... It turns out that we cannot directly see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 3:19 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 5:08 PM Catholic Scientist has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4654
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 108 of 113 (621921)
06-29-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 3:19 PM


You have the wrong field
When the galaxy rotations did not fit the evolutionary model, instead of questioning the evolutionary model (dogma must not be challenged), "Dark Matter" was invented to explain away the problem.

Evolution does not deal with galaxies. For that you want astronomers and the like.

Unless you are using the standard creationist definition for "evolution" -- "Everything that creationists disagree with."

;-)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 3:19 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10725
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 109 of 113 (621924)
06-29-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 3:19 PM


quote:

When the galaxy rotations did not fit the evolutionary model, instead of questioning the evolutionary model (dogma must not be challenged), "Dark Matter" was invented to explain away the problem.

In other words, instead of throwing out lots of working science, scientists looked for an explanation that fitted with their current knowledge, and then started to investigate it to find out if it was correct. And the evidence is that they got it right. According to you they should have thrown everything out, decided that creationists were right - and stopped there, stuck in an error.

quote:

Conveniently, Dark Matter, by definition, is unobservable, except for the effects it supposedly creates.

Of course this is not simply a convenient invention, since only matter that emits or reflects sufficient light will be visible to us anyway.

quote:

The first time I read about Dark Matter I recognized it as obviously circular reasoning, except that it is not so obvious to the evolutionists who wanted to believe in something they could not see.

In other words you decided that dark matter could not exist because it would refute a creationist argument. How is that any less circular ?

quote:

So now, some posters to this thread are not even sure DM is matter after all, but they are absolutely certain it exists, whatever it is (sounds like "faith" to me).

And yet, the evidence supports Dark Matter. It would seem to require more faith to conclude that it does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 3:19 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

    
SecondPeterThreeFive
Junior Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 110 of 113 (621945)
06-29-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Catholic Scientist
06-29-2011 3:32 PM


***Trying to "bring down" a scientific pursuit to being on the same level as faith, is only insulting faith, itself. The whole "see, you guys are using faith too" argument makes faith look bad. As a christian I ask you to stop that.***

Not at all. I do not denegrate faith in God one bit. However, you must admit that the faith/science label is certainly relevent in this forum and in the public debate in public schools. Here, and in our culture in general, science is assumed to be objective while faith is subjective, and not to be taught in schools. I claim that much of what passes for "objective science" is really a faith in naturalism. That is not denegration, that is simply categorization.

***There is no "evolutionary model" that acts as dogma to cosmologists who theorize about dark matter. Why do you think there is?

The fact that dark matter was invented is a challange to the previous theory that didn't include it, so what we're seeing is revision as opposed to clutching onto dogma.***

Actually, the ancient age of the universe is the dogma being clutched to. There is little differential speed observed in the arms of spiral galaxies, a fact that would be impossible if the universe was 20-30 billions of years old. The "answer" is that there must be a "sphere" of matter around the plane of the visible arms to account for the observed rotation. This matter must be "dark matter" to explain why we cannot see it. (Of course, there is no explaination why all the bright matter settled in one plane.)

***Enormous amounts of matter are having to be held together through gravitational frorces from something... It turns out that we cannot directly see it.***

What is your basis for saying this? What exists in the observed universe that requires dark matter? The only "evidence" is the speed of rotation in spiral galaxies, and that requires the assumption of an old universe.

If you can entertain for one second the possibility of a young universe, then the rotational speed of spiral arms offers no puzzle at all, and is even consistent with the hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Catholic Scientist, posted 06-29-2011 3:32 PM Catholic Scientist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2011 5:10 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 5:20 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Catholic Scientist, posted 06-29-2011 5:38 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 111 of 113 (621947)
06-29-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 5:08 PM


If you can entertain for one second the possibility of a young universe, then the rotational speed of spiral arms offers no puzzle at all, and is even consistent with the hypothesis.

Please present us with the model for this.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 5:08 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 5145
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 112 of 113 (621953)
06-29-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 5:08 PM


Not at all. I do not denegrate faith in God one bit.

You denigrate faith by using it as an insult.

Actually, the ancient age of the universe is the dogma being clutched to.

The age of the universe is a conclusion drawn from evidence, not a dogma. If you want to dispute the age of the universe then please put forth data that contradicts the current calculated age.

There is little differential speed observed in the arms of spiral galaxies, a fact that would be impossible if the universe was 20-30 billions of years old.

Evidence please.

The "answer" is that there must be a "sphere" of matter around the plane of the visible arms to account for the observed rotation. This matter must be "dark matter" to explain why we cannot see it.

Actually, we can see it. We can see it through gravitational lensing as discussed in this article:

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/...sreleases/2006/20060821.htm

Scientists are actively mapping the distribution of dark matter using gravitational lensing.

If you can entertain for one second the possibility of a young universe, then the rotational speed of spiral arms offers no puzzle at all, and is even consistent with the hypothesis.

In a young universe we should not even be able to see these galaxies due to the fact that they are millions of light years away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 5:08 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9297
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 113 of 113 (621962)
06-29-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 5:08 PM


If you type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] then it will become

quotes are easy


Not at all. I do not denegrate faith in God one bit.

When you make it as an insult in that "science is faith too", as if you're bringing science down to a lower level, then you have denigrated faith.

I claim that much of what passes for "objective science" is really a faith in naturalism.

But that's not how faith works. If you make an assuption of naturalism and then follow the evidence where it leads, you're not employing faith unless your assumption is shown to be wrong and then you hold it regardless.

That is not denegration, that is simply categorization.

But you're implying that faith is the lower category that you're bringing science down in to.

Actually, the ancient age of the universe is the dogma being clutched to.

Except that its not. The ancient age of the universe is a conclusion that was arrived at despite that people thought that it wasn't that old.

There is little differential speed observed in the arms of spiral galaxies, a fact that would be impossible if the universe was 20-30 billions of years old.

Why?

The "answer" is that there must be a "sphere" of matter around the plane of the visible arms to account for the observed rotation. This matter must be "dark matter" to explain why we cannot see it. (Of course, there is no explaination why all the bright matter settled in one plane.)

quote:
The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[8] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.source

What is your basis for saying this? What exists in the observed universe that requires dark matter? The only "evidence" is the speed of rotation in spiral galaxies, and that requires the assumption of an old universe.

No, see above.

If you can entertain for one second the possibility of a young universe, then the rotational speed of spiral arms offers no puzzle at all, and is even consistent with the hypothesis.

How so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 5:08 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014