Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
180 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 177 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,413 Year: 2,059/14,102 Month: 427/624 Week: 148/163 Day: 3/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dark matter a dying theory?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 7 of 113 (619081)
06-08-2011 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
06-07-2011 11:15 PM


If you bother to read the article you will see that it refers only to attempts to detect one possible form of dark matter on Earth. Even then it seems incomplete, not mentioning a possible detection in a Minnesota mine in 2009. In addition it must be noted that detection of these particles is extremely difficult, so the failure is not conclusive.
Also, the link to another part of the site indicates that the doubters are only a small group (and by my understanding they don't have a viable alternative to dark matter yet).

To sum up, we have a small problem for one admittedly popular view of dark matter, but the idea of dark matter itself is not in serious trouble at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 06-07-2011 11:15 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 113 (619085)
06-08-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
06-07-2011 11:15 PM


Not so fast....
Since then, one more experiment has reported positive results, and another appears to be on the verge of doing so. And it seems that these results are consistent with an earlier report. More here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 06-07-2011 11:15 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by tesla, posted 06-08-2011 3:14 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 30 of 113 (619188)
06-09-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by tesla
06-08-2011 6:16 PM


Re: Not so fast....
quote:

Initial post. That site [The initial analyses] is from: is dedicated to new science. I'm pointing out there is not any evidence.

That doesn't answer the point, and it isn't true. Aside from the fact that the story referred to in the OP only dealt with one form of dark matter and didn't touch on the evidence for dark matter in general there have been positive results from other experiments.

So lets be honest, shall we. You over-interpreted a story that was already out of date. And that's it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 06-08-2011 6:16 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 2:49 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 32 of 113 (619194)
06-09-2011 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by tesla
06-09-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Not so fast....
So you agree that there is evidence ? Even your added words and omissions don't change that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 2:49 AM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 42 of 113 (619350)
06-09-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
06-09-2011 2:37 PM


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.

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]

here

How 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 2:37 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 3:21 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 56 of 113 (619377)
06-09-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by slevesque
06-09-2011 3:21 PM


quote:

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.

Given that you are clearly strongly biased in favour of YEC views, and many YECs are opposed to dark matter the evidence does suggest a connection.

quote:

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.

Sure.

[qs]
Dark matter is also required to hold the galaxies together during all the supposed time the universe has existed

...

Perhaps the observations should be interpreted more straightforward, in which case the universe is not nearly as old as astronomers believe. The ‘big bang’ theory would also have to be either abandoned or greatly retooled.
[qs]

From: No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy

CMI seem to think that they should be arguing against the existence of dark matter.

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

I agree the bullet cluster sutdy is interesting, but previous claims of direct detection have also come and gone before.

But the fact that we have two consistent reports means that now would be a very bad time to give up on dark matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 3:21 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 4:13 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 61 of 113 (619390)
06-09-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
06-09-2011 4:13 PM


quote:

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.

You are wrong to to say that dark matter is necessary to the Big Bang. 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.

quote:

I never pretended to have extensively researched the subject either.

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.

quote:

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.


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 4:13 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 10:47 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 79 of 113 (619486)
06-10-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by slevesque
06-09-2011 10:47 PM


quote:

I said necessary to the current Big Bang model.

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).

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.


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).

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 10:47 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:18 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 91 of 113 (620074)
06-14-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by slevesque
06-14-2011 1:18 AM


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:


Dark matter is also required to hold the galaxies together during all the supposed time the universe has existed

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:18 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 3:36 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 93 of 113 (620114)
06-14-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by slevesque
06-14-2011 3:36 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 3:36 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:43 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 98 of 113 (620177)
06-14-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by slevesque
06-14-2011 1:43 PM


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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:43 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021