Dark matter a dying theory?

well then, here is the update:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110607_darkmatter.htm"Dark matter is estimated to account for nearly 90 percent of all matter in the universe, yet its identity remains one of the biggest mysteries of modern science. Although dark matter is invisible to telescopes, most astronomers say they know it exists because it exerts a strong gravitational influence over galaxies that nothing visible can explain."This paragraph sums up the evidence quite well:In science language, I read : "strong (apparently) gravitational influence"and:"nothing visible can explain."If all the space dust in a galaxy is collected, what is its gravitational capability? or does that not matter either?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So you agree that there is evidence ? Even your added words and omissions don't change that.

"Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?"

Hi Tesla,I think you're conflating two different things.There is something we cannot see exerting a gravitational influence on galaxies. We don't know what is exerting this force, but we've given it a name: dark matter. We have very strong observational evidence of this phenomena.What we don't have any good evidence for is the nature of dark matter. We don't know what it is. No one is claiming we know what it is. One cannot make claims based upon insufficient evidence.There are a number of hypotheses about the nature of dark matter. Maybe one of them is right, maybe not. We don't know yet.--Percy

There is something we cannot see exerting emotional and behavioral influence on mankind. We don't know why this force has such influence, but we have given it names like "God" or "Belief structure". We have very strong observational evidence of this phenomena.Do you see that this evidence is not really any evidence other giving a name to an unexplainable phenomenon? That is exactly what everyone is doing though. Those entertaining the alternative hypotheses do not seem to be entertaining them here.Edited by tesla, : missing quote box added.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The problem with this analogy is your labels. "Dark matter" is a relatively neutral label that doesn't imply any particular conclusion about the nature of dark matter. "God" on the other hand is pretty specific about the nature of this influence. "Belief structure" is an improvement but still far too specific. But I think few would have much problem with this analogy if you were to choose a truly neutral term, maybe "psychology" for example.Stating this another way, people's behavior and feelings and responses to stimulus are very real, but calling the phenomenon responsible "God" or "Belief structure" is to imply a specific answer where we don't really have one. "Dark matter" as it is interpreted within the physics community implies no specific answer at this time.Or coming at this from yet another angle, when we say "dark matter" is responsible for keeping rotating galaxies from flying apart we haven't narrowed down the answer. It could be a form of matter that only rarely interacts with normal matter, or it could be objects that do not give off enough light to be detected, or it could be that we don't quite have the laws of physics correct yet, or it could be the influence of extra dimensions, or it be something else I haven't included here since this isn't a complete list, or it could be something no one has thought of yet.But when you say "God" is "exerting emotional and behavioral influences on mankind" you're implying a very specific answer, one you have no evidence for.--Percy

Do you know anything at all about the history of mankind and mankind’s buildings of temples and cities in the name of God?Or noticed 'In God we trust' on money?Have you seen the joy in a person’s face in a church when they have prayed?No evidence? The evidence of the influence on this mystery called "God" on mankind is so bold and evident you can only ignore it to not see it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I agree I worded that a bit poorly, I was speaking more of a serious consideration of alternatives particularly by those who have been searching for this dark for 20 years with little results.I was referring that maybe it was time for a genuine paradigm shift in the way we approach this question. I just have a hard time seeing how such a high-confidence is merited. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Read reply to CD for clarifications.Also, only the first two here fall in the category of dark matter, and the first one insanely more popular then the second.What I'm saying is that I see little basis for such a strong tendency to think unknown kinds of matter are responsible for what we seePS I'm not talking about scientists not wanting to think outside the box, I'm not a conspirationist. But I realize that paradigms have much more influence then we usually acknowledge, and that this seems to me to be a textbook example.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Okay, let me try another tack.Let us grant for the sake of discussion that God is a proven and well identified phenomenon. In that case, "dark matter" fits into a different category because, unlike God, we have no idea what it is. "Dark matter" is merely a label for the unknown cause of the gravitational influence that prevents rotating galaxies from flying apart. The gravitational influence itself is well established, but the cause of that influence is not. We give the cause of this gravitational influence the name "dark matter."--Percy

No analogies are perfect, but I think it is a good fit.Both come from a difference between a predicted theoretical value and actual observation. In both cases, the ad hoc explanation was matter tha we could not see (vulcan was posited to be on the other side of the sun if I remember correctly) that explained the discrepency via it's gravitational effect.Not there is nothing inherently wrong with this: Neptune's existence was predicted via this same reasoning

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that I see little basis for such a strong tendency to think unknown kinds of matter are responsible for what we see

​

PS I'm not talking about scientists not wanting to think outside the box, I'm not a conspirationist. But I realize that paradigms have much more influence then we usually acknowledge, and that this seems to me to be a textbook example.

---

Are you sure that your opinion is due to investigating the evidence or does it have more to do with the fact that many YECs oppose dark matter because it discredits one of their arguments ?Here is what a professional astrophysicist wrote about the evidence for dark matter versus Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) in 2008: In summary, MOND explains galactic rotation curves better than dark matter does, and pretty much nothing else. Dark matter explains the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing, the Bullet cluster and the cluster Abell 520, and also is consistent with a host of cosmological observations (e.g., nucleosynthesis, supernovae data, cluster estimates of the matter density) that MOND isn't. All that really remains is to detect dark matter directly. [/qs]hereHow many of these lines of evidence have you considered in your assessment of dark matter ?And it is beginning to look as if we have direct detection too, now. At least two consistent positive results, and a real possibility of a third.

You are sort of begging the question here.What we do observe is a difference between the theoretical mass a galaxy contains, nferred from it's rotating speed, and the observed visible mass it actually contains.''Dark matter'' isn't the name being given to this phenomenon, it is the name of one of the explanation thought possible: that this indicates additional matter exists that has a gravitational influence. The terms dark matter therefore aren't as general as you say they are, and they certainly imply a certain amount of specificity contrary to what you say in your next message.

It has little to do with YECism, and more to do with discussions I have had and reading. I also don't pretend to have looked in depth into the subject either.Also, YECist have no reason to reject dark matter nor dark energy that I know of. It would be interesting for you to point out which arguments you are referring to. I am definitely not leaning towards MON either, which seems to be the main concern of the astrophysicist you quoted. I can't comment on any points specifically because his comment was much too general. I agree the bullet cluster sutdy is interesting, but previous claims of direct detection have also come and gone before.

I see nothing wrong with that. What I am pointing out is due to lack of evidence it might be wise to put alternative idea's into the foreground and keep dark matter a potential until proven otherwise.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides