|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dark matter a dying theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SecondPeterThreeFive Junior Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: And yet, the evidence supports Dark Matter. It would seem to require more faith to conclude that it does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SecondPeterThreeFive Junior Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
***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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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: SLAC | Bold People. Visionary Science. Real Impact. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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: 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024