Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dark matter a dying theory?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 3 of 113 (619077)
06-08-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Taz
06-07-2011 11:31 PM


Look, god knows what those scientists are really thinking. My problem with science writers is that they often don't know the details of what they are writing about.
The term dark matter refers to anything that exerts a gravitation force on the visible galaxy that's causing it to behavior more like a solid object than mostly empty space.
Looking for dark matter is like looking for a murderer. Suppose we find a woman stabbed to death. Whoever that killed her we will cal Mr. X. We got suspects A and B. Oops, neither A nor B turned out to be elsewhere when the woman was murdered.
To say that just because they can't find what dark matter is in a few tries then they doubt it exists is like saying Mr. X doesn't exist because A and B didn't turn out to be the murderer.
We know with absolute certainty that the galaxy is behaving like there are more mass in it than what we can see. It doesn't matter what dark matter is made of. It could be god for all I care. Nonetheless, it is there.
It is more complicated then that, unfortunately, we don't have any assurance it exists. The question becomes: when do you stop looking for vulcan and start thinking of alternative explanations ?
I had a professor that had a hunch dark matter is made of an entirely different matter than then what we would call normal matter. And when I say different, I mean even the spins are different or there's no spin at all and it has no eletromagnetic charge it is simply impossible for us to detect it using conventional means.
If I'm not mistaken, it cannot have electromagnetic charge because it only exerts gravitational effects. So it wasn't that big of a hunch (although it depends how long ago this was, since there was a time dark matter was thought to be regular matter)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Taz, posted 06-07-2011 11:31 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 06-08-2011 12:08 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 06-08-2011 4:24 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 06-08-2011 8:25 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 5 of 113 (619079)
06-08-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
06-08-2011 12:08 AM


Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? We haven't even sent a man to the nearest planet and you want us to give up already?
I have never suggested we give up. I have difficulty seeing where anything I said could be interpreted as such.
Again, you seem to be under the impression that "dark matter" refers to something specific. I assure, it is not. It is like saying "Mr. X murdered the woman." Mr. X refers to anyone who killed the woman. Mr. X is a place holder just like dark matter is a place holder.
I am under no such impression. I study physics and I have already been to a couple lectures on the subject and it was brought up multiple times in discussions with teachers and fellow students alike.
''Looking into alternatives'' and ''giving up'' are two very different things. My question is perfectly reasonable, and the vulcan analogy appropriate.
You don't understand. Everything we know of has an electromagnetic charge. Why the hell do you think we don't fall right through the earth surface and toward the center? All "normal" matter interact with electromagnetic force. That's why solid objects don't go through each other.
Yes, but unless anyone thought dark matter was baryonic matter, this is irrelevant.
Considering dark matter was undetectable, having the hunch that ''it didn't have an electromagnetic charge'' wasn't all that extraordinary of a hunch.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 06-08-2011 12:08 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 06-08-2011 1:06 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2011 9:46 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 113 (619344)
06-09-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
06-08-2011 4:24 AM


You are on a one-way trip to cranks-ville with this thinking. I'd get that out of your system now. If you think for one second that the cosmology world has not seriously looked at alternative explanations, you're an idiot.
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.
We have high-confidence that dark-matter is real. High-confidence does not mean "this is the truth and we cannot possibly be wrong".
I just have a hard time seeing how such a high-confidence is merited.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 06-08-2011 4:24 AM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 39 of 113 (619345)
06-09-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
06-08-2011 8:25 AM


Yeah, you're right, even though a Nobel awaits the team that uncovers the nature of what we currently call dark matter, scientists march in lock step to their preconceptions and refuse to think outside the box. Over the past decade the articles I've read have described scientists who are confining themselves to only the most pedestrian of possibilities.
Yet undiscovered forms of matter? How boring is that!
Mini-black holes created during the big bang? Yawn.
Modified laws of physics? Snore.
Effects of extra dimensions? Soporific (look it up).
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 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.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 06-08-2011 8:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 3:02 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:45 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 06-09-2011 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 41 of 113 (619348)
06-09-2011 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
06-08-2011 9:46 AM


I think the analogy is apt, but perhaps strained. The hypothetical Vulcan was merely difficult to detect. But there was no belief that it would be impossible to detect.
It may well be that dark matter is impossible to detect other than through its gravitational effect. There may never be anything other than highly circumstantial evidence for dark matter. Unlike the case of Vulcan, every failure to detect dark matter may mean simply dropping one particular dark matter hypothesis.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2011 9:46 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2011 9:27 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 43 of 113 (619351)
06-09-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
06-09-2011 9:27 AM


Re: Not so fast....
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 06-09-2011 9:27 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 06-09-2011 4:46 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 44 of 113 (619358)
06-09-2011 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
06-09-2011 3:02 PM


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 ?
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.
How many of these lines of evidence have you considered in your assessment of dark matter ?
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.
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.
I agree the bullet cluster sutdy is interesting, but previous claims of direct detection have also come and gone before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 3:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 3:49 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 49 of 113 (619367)
06-09-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
06-09-2011 3:28 PM


Re: Not so fast....
A verified hypothesis is not an educated guess. Do you even understand how science works?
Try not to play on words. You did say ''creating a hypothesis'', which is pretty much making an educated guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:35 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 57 of 113 (619378)
06-09-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
06-09-2011 3:35 PM


Re: Not so fast....
I have always found you to be a pretty honest person, so I will assume that you are making an honest mistake here. Let's see what I actually said:
"Scientists aren't guessing. They are creating hypotheses and testing those hypotheses."
You only quoted the creating part and left out the rest. Most would consider that to be a quote mine. A hypothesis that is tested and passes those tests is a verified hypothesis, not an educated guess.
It's that I think that what Tesla calls an 'educated guess' is the ''creating a hypothesis'' part of how scientists work.
I'm pointing out that he is right: it is an educated guess, and scientists continually work on educated guess with an increasing level of confidence the more it is tested and verified. Nonetheless, he is right on that.
The mistake is that he attaches a negative connotation to it, as if it was a bad thing. This is where he is wrong: even though this is how scientists (and humans in general) work, there is nothing with it, it's just normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 4:15 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 113 (619383)
06-09-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
06-09-2011 3:49 PM


CMI seem to think that they should be arguing against the existence of dark matter.
The fact that dark matter is necessary to the current Big Bang model does not mean that the none-existence of Dark matter is also necessary to the creationist cosmological models. This is clearly a fallacious reasoning.
Same applies to dark energy, and in fact a recent paper in the journal of creation about dark energy highlighted this point many times: creationists have no inherent reasons to be against dark energy, because creationist cosmologies don't rely on it.
But, you will note that several points were listed as being in favour of dark matter, rather than simply favouring it over MOND. However, at this stage my point is not that you should simply accept an expert opinion, but simply to point out that there is a lot more evidence that needs consideration than you were aware of.
Your assessment that the only evidence was the rotational speed, and that dark matter is likely a mistake that we should give up on is certainly premature at the very least - and certainly not based on the evidence, since you hadn't researched the matter enough to even know what evidence you needed to consider.
I never pretended to have extensively researched the subject either.
But I also do keep in mind what Einstein said to Heisenberg: it is the theory which decides what we can observe. This is especially true in cosmology.
If you really search for something long enough, you'll find it, even if it's not there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 4:26 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 4:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 74 of 113 (619471)
06-09-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
06-09-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Not so fast....
So what shall we call the verified hypothesis? Still an educated guess?
I guess you could call it a verified educated guess. Or it could become a theory, at which point I would not consider it simply an educated guess anymore.
But if, by putting a kettel of water on the stove, I hypothesise that it will boil eventually, then whether it turns out to be true or false the fact remains that it was an educated guess.
As I said, the error is in assigning a negative connotation to the words.
They did work on it, and it passed testing. So what do we call it now? And no, tesla is not right. I distinctly stated that it was a tested hypothesis, one that passed testing. He called this an educated guess, which it is not.
If we take my example above, it remains an educated guess, albeit one that turned out to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 4:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 06-10-2011 7:52 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 11:18 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 75 of 113 (619473)
06-09-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
06-09-2011 4:36 PM


This seems to be a common misconception. The term dark matter encompasses possibilities that are not matter. Look at my list - you quoted it, you should try reading it, too. These items were on the list:
Modified laws of physics?
Effects of extra dimensions?
Neither of those possibilities are matter. If you'd like a more complete (and accurate) list of non-matter possibilities then you should check with Cavediver.
I'm pretty sure the misconception is yours, modified laws of physics and effects of extra dimensions would not be described as dark matter, but rather as alternative explanations to dark matter.
Dark matter - Wikipedia
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation.
Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws.
Dark Energy (Definition)
Answers about Dark Matter
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dark%20matter
Nowhere do I see it defined as anything else then matter. Also, look at the list of papers Cavediver's search turned out:
http://arxiv.org/...atter+AND+alternative+dark/0/1/0/all/0/1
They aren't presented as ''particular forms of dark matter'' but rather as ''alternatives of dark matter''

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 06-09-2011 4:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 06-10-2011 8:01 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 76 of 113 (619474)
06-09-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
06-09-2011 4:26 PM


You are wrong to to say that dark matter is necessary to the Big Bang.
I said necessary to the current Big Bang model.
And you are wrong to suggest that I ever claimed that the absence of dark matter is necessary to creationist models. All I claimed was that YECs argued against dark matter, because it's existence was fatal to one of their arguments. A claim I have proven.
Unfortunately, you had to prove that creationists had reasons to reject dark matter. The only way this would be so is if it's none-existence was necessary for the viability of creationists cosmology models.
The simple fact that creationist highlight the fact that the existence of dark matter is necessary for current BB models does not mean they have reasons to reject it.
If you doubt this, then just take an example of the opposite: John Hartnett's cosmological model requires cosmological relativity to be true. If it is not, then he's model is falsified. Does that give you any reason to reject cosmological relativity ? Obviously not.
But you do want us to believe that your views are based on the evidence. Here we see that your view was based on ignorance of the evidence.
No, it was based on what I know of the evidence. I did not say ''No one knows this and that so I believe that and this''.
I said ''From what I do know of the subject, this is what I think'', and of course, since I do not know all their is to know, I have affirmed very little, and left the door open for a lot of possibilities.
Maybe you might like to think about how that applies to YECs. Considering the fact that the evidence vastly favours an old universe and an old Earth, is it not likely that the little evidence that YECs actually have (as opposed to falsehoods and misrepresentations) is due to this rather than the truth of their views ?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 4:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 12:48 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2011 2:11 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 87 of 113 (620066)
06-14-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
06-10-2011 2:11 AM


And you still haven't offered any reason to believe it. SO far as I know dark matter - at least not in the sense of WIMPs which is all the article deals with - isn't essential. (If it were then other alternatives would be in even more trouble).
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.
Wrong. I gave a reason. Dark matter gets in the way of one of their arguments. And the quote showed exactly that. All I have to do is to show that what I said is true.
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).
The fact it does or does not exist changes nothing for creationists.
I don't notice any of your posts admitting that you have studied the matter very little and don't even know what evidence supports the existence of dark matter. I do see you calling on scientists to give up the search (when we may be on the cusp of definitely detecting it directly, on top of the indirect detections) or alleging that the only evidence is in the rotational speeds of galaxies (which is exactly the evidence used by YECs to insist on a young universe).
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.
Of course it would apply most to the people more desperately searching, using lower quality controls - and if a position is strongly opposed by other evidence we have more reason to think that weak evidence offered for it is an example of this very effect. Which is, of course, all we see from YECs.
And more aware of it ? Don't make me laugh. Use it more often as an excuse to dismiss evidence that they don't like, at best ! If they were really honestly aware of it than they would take care to avoid it in their own work. They don't. They take less care than mainstream science does. Using it solely as an excuse to dismiss other peoples work is hypocrisy and nothing more.
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
/rant.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2011 2:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2011 1:51 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 88 of 113 (620068)
06-14-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy
06-10-2011 7:52 AM


Re: Not so fast....
There is a marked tendency on the part of creationists to invent their own terminology. I guess it's much easier to be right if you can claim words mean anything convenient for your arguments, but there's really not much point to it.
I don't think this has anything to do with inventing any terminology.
But you'll have to point to me where an educated guess and a hypothesis are any different in a substantial way. As I see it, hypothesis is used when talking about aneducated guess in the field of science.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 06-10-2011 7:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 06-14-2011 9:01 AM slevesque has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024