|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dark matter a dying theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
tesla writes: 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.
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. I know that man has built buildings for many reasons. God does not back the value of the money. What actually backs the money is the trust in the full faith and honor of the US Government. And I was in the generation that had to relearn the pledge 'cause they stuck God in, so know the history of it. Seen the joy on someone face when they get a job, meet a lover, taste a new food, get a 'brain freeze'? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Initial post. That site [The initial analyses] is from: is dedicated to new science. I'm pointing out there is not any evidence. What are you trying to say here?
LMAO an 'educated' guess is still a guess ! A verified hypothesis is not an educated guess. Do you even understand how science works?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
A verified hypothesis is not an educated guess. Do you even understand how science works?
A verified hypothesis is not a hypothesis. Are you attempting to convince me that science has accepted dark matter as a fact? Because if so, scientists accept dark matter is only 'potential' and has no verification. Do you know more than all of today’s leading scientists? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
If all the space dust in a galaxy is collected, what is its gravitational capability? The sum of the mass is the gravitational capability. This sum is much less than the amount of gravity that galaxies are producing as observed by spin rate and gravitational lensing.
"nothing visible can explain." Yep, matter that does not absorb, reflect, or emit light. What is wrong with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Try not to play on words. You did say ''creating a hypothesis'', which is pretty much making an educated guess. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
A verified hypothesis is not a hypothesis. I never said that it was. What is so hard to understand here? This is Science 101. I posted a picture and posted a link describing research into dark matter. I described how it tested for the presence of dark matter, and how dark matter was verified. How is this an "educated guess"? Most would call it strong evidence, and most astronomers do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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. What is wrong with the explanation that this gravitational influence is due to matter that does not absorb, emit, or reflect light as well as having very weak interactions with luminous matter? What do you find so objectionable? It fits the data perfectly. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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 Astronomers are able to map where dark matter is in the universe, and yet you think there is little basis for its existence. Perhaps the problem isn't with the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Or noticed 'In God we trust' on money?
Do you have any idea when this became the official US motto and when god was inserted in to pledge of allegiance? Do you think all money has this motto?And what the hell does this have to do with the topic? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: But the fact that we have two consistent reports means that now would be a very bad time to give up on dark matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It's that I think that what Tesla calls an 'educated guess' is the ''creating a hypothesis'' part of how scientists work. So what shall we call the verified hypothesis? Still an educated guess?
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Taq writes: What is wrong with the explanation that this gravitational influence is due to matter that does not absorb, emit, or reflect light as well as having very weak interactions with luminous matter? What do you find so objectionable? It fits the data perfectly. What is leading Tesla astray, and I think you also, is that the term "dark matter" encompasses possibilities that are not matter, such as modified laws of physics or extra dimensions. When the term "dark matter" was originally proposed back in the 1980s and maybe before the only alternatives envisioned *were* actually matter, euphemistically called WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles) and MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects), but since that time a whole host of other possibilities have been proposed. The term "dark matter" no longer encompasses only possibilities that are matter. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024