Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9014 total)
42 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 882,017 Year: 13,765/23,288 Month: 283/412 Week: 70/40 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dark matter a dying theory?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8445
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 62 of 113 (619394)
06-09-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
06-09-2011 4:20 PM


Re: Not so fast....
The term "dark matter" no longer encompasses only possibilities that are matter.

That, in itself, would be a very tortured discussion. Matter and energy are interchangable, and forces are the result of the interchange of particles. Even more, if my understanding is correct String theory proposes that matter is made up of extra dimensions rolled up into strings. It would be one of those discussions where the colloquial and scientific uses of words form a Gordian knot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 06-09-2011 4:20 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 63 of 113 (619395)
06-09-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
06-09-2011 2:37 PM


slevesque writes:

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

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.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Bad code.


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 75 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 10:35 PM Percy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8445
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 64 of 113 (619398)
06-09-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
06-09-2011 4:13 PM


But I also do keep in mind what Einstein said to Heisenberg: it is the theory which decides what we can observe.

That probably needs some context. For Heisenberg's uncertainty principle it is certainly true. The theory states that one can observe the momentum or the location of a particle, but not both. For Einstein, one can observe the particle or wave characteristics of light, but not both at the same time.

If you really search for something long enough, you'll find it, even if it's not there.

Which is why phlogiston theory is so popular in science. Oh, wait . . .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 4:13 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 113 (619400)
06-09-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
06-09-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Not so fast....
slevesque writes:

What we do observe is a difference between the theoretical mass a galaxy contains, inferred from it's rotating speed, and the observed visible mass it actually contains.

This would be incorrect. As the acronym for one of the original alternatives for dark matter implies (MACHOs, Massive Compact Halo Objects), the dark matter was thought to exist in a halo outside the galaxy.

''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.

The original possibilities for dark matter *were* actually matter (MACHOs and WIMPs), but the list of possibilities has expanded to include non-matter possibilities. The original term persists.

The original criticism that science is not considering alternative explanations for dark matter beyond those that include matter is incorrect.

I understand that the term dark matter may seem misleading, but historically that is the name that the cause of the phenomenon was given, and so that is the name we happen to be stuck with. Take it up with Webster.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 3:04 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 66 of 113 (619432)
06-09-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
06-09-2011 3:31 PM


Re: Not so fast....
Yep, matter that does not absorb, reflect, or emit light. What is wrong with that?

Um...lol

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.

All our math of a body’s density and mass are approximations though.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:31 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 7:19 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 67 of 113 (619433)
06-09-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
06-09-2011 3:39 PM


Re: Not so fast....
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.

The behavior that prompted the belief that dark matter could be a cause was verified. Dark matter itself has not been verified.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:39 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 7:29 PM tesla has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1984 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 68 of 113 (619439)
06-09-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by tesla
06-09-2011 6:40 PM


Re: Not so fast....
tesla writes:

All our math of a body’s density and mass are approximations though.


Tesla, no offense, but I am seeing a pattern in your way of thinking. You seem to think that approximation == wild guess. When I say this way of thinking, I'm not just referring to your misconception of approximation. You tend to think of things in a vacuum, meaning you use a small piece of evidence to support your assertion while ignoring the all the other evidence that contradict your assertion.

Suppose someone asks me how old my nephew is. Off the top of my head, I have no idea his exact age. But I do know that he is about 10 or so. So, I say about 10. It's an approximation. If he turns out to be 11 or 9, my answer would still be correct. If, for example, he is 11 and I say "about 24", then my answer would be a wild guess because it is no where near the correct age.

Going back to the galaxy, we can approximate the mass of the stars and with enough calculations the approximate mass of the galaxy by observing the movements and behavior. Now, for you to understand how this is done, I have to point to physics 101 that every college student should have learned. Without going into details, we can calculate the mass of Jupiter's moons by measuring the relative distance between the moon and the planet and orbital period. universal gravitation equation!

So, no, approximation does not equal wild guess. We actually have a mathematical and scientific basis for those approximations.

In the other thread, you did exactly the same thing as you're doing here. You made a claim that creationist research should be treated equally to scientific research. I had to point out to you that your statement is made in a vacuum because you never considered the results! Scientific research produce real world results while creationist research have not made a single advancement in our understanding of nature.

I'm just pointing this out as constructive criticism. You can take it for what it's worth or you can make a knee jerk reaction. I don't really care. It just bothers me to see you having this attitude.

Added by edit.

I say as a researcher in material science. What we do isn't just theoretical bullshit. We actually produce real world results and applications for our private funders. Frankly, I'm appalled at how creationists can continue to operate in our capitalist system. They have not produced a single real world result. And yet they continue to get fundings. Boggles the mind.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 6:40 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 7:57 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1984 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 69 of 113 (619444)
06-09-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by tesla
06-09-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Not so fast....
tesla writes:

The behavior that prompted the belief that dark matter could be a cause was verified. Dark matter itself has not been verified.


You still don't understand the meaning behind the term "dark matter". It's a place holder for what we don't know. It doesn't refer to any specific thing.

That said, you are incorrect. Dark matter itself has been verified to exist because we know a large chunk of the universe is missing. Whatever the hell that's making the galaxies behave the way they behave we call "dark matter". It doesn't matter what "dark matter" turns out to be. For all we know, it could be the 5th dimension or the pink unicorn or whatever.

You seem to be having trouble understand the concept of "I don't know" here.

Added by edit.

So, earlier today I attended my friend's wife's Ph.D. dissertation for organic chemistry. It was quite a humbling experience, because after the first 5 minutes everything just shot 2 miles over my head. I was really trying to keep up with what the hell she was talking about. But damn! I was scratching my head the whole way through. Her husband, my friend, also a material science engineer, reassured me that he also had no idea what the hell she was talking about.

The point is astrophysicists have good reasons to postulate the existence of dark matter. Fritz Szwicky (sp?) was a really really smart guy. Even if us lowly mortals don't understand all the details, it doesn't negate the fact that there are very very good reasons to believe the existence of something that's making up most of the mass of the universe that, for the moment, we can't detect.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : changed opinion to experience... must have been a result from that stroke...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 6:42 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 8:03 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 70 of 113 (619452)
06-09-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
06-09-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Not so fast....
Tesla, no offense, but I am seeing a pattern in your way of thinking. You seem to think that approximation == wild guess. When I say this way of thinking, I'm not just referring to your misconception of approximation. You tend to think of things in a vacuum, meaning you use a small piece of evidence to support your assertion while ignoring the all the other evidence that contradict your assertion.

Science is the tool to understanding the universe we are in. I see all the time how adamant people are about general theories being true because educated people have done some tests and confirmed it.

Now let’s see what is easier, finding confirming connections in two quadratic functions, or finding two points that do not confirm they are the same equation?

It all depends on how you approach the problem. To verify an equation is not the same as another you have to find the points that do not match.

I approach science with an open mind. A lot of 'appearances' can be misleading. That does not mean research has not been productive. It almost always pays off into furthering knowledge. What bugs me is how confident scientist relay very tentative theories to a public that trust them to be relaying facts and are let down. String theory is a good example.

I say as a researcher in material science. What we do isn't just theoretical bullshit. We actually produce real world results and applications for our private funders. Frankly, I'm appalled at how creationists can continue to operate in our capitalist system. They have not produced a single real world result. And yet they continue to get fundings. Boggles the mind.

You are very close minded as a scientist. They are producing real world results; that is why they are funded. If you open your mind you'll discover what those real world results are. Open your mind some more and you'll find answering that question could benefit the whole of the human race and maybe even save it from extinction.

As far as how I post: The way I speak is a figment of your imagination. I am open to discuss anything, but I like to point out flaws in dogmatic responses (or ignore them entirely). It is a common tactic of most who post here that when they see a dogmatic religious response they attack the poster (Dog piling). You might not like me saying things; like: “that’s just an approximation” or “Nothing is proven by that, the observation is as tentative as the interpretation of what was observed” But given your level of education you know them to be true.

Edited by tesla, : spacing


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 7:19 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 9:22 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 71 of 113 (619453)
06-09-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
06-09-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Not so fast....
You still don't understand the meaning behind the term "dark matter". It's a place holder for what we don't know. It doesn't refer to any specific thing.

Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. So I can now say: Dark Matter is the name given to whatever explains why the mass of the universe is not adding up to scientific calculations.

edit:

So, earlier today I attended my friend's wife's Ph.D. dissertation for organic chemistry. It was quite a humbling opinion, because after the first 5 minutes everything just shot 2 miles over my head. I was really trying to keep up with what the hell she was talking about. But damn! I was scratching my head the whole way through. Her husband, my friend, also a material science engineer, reassured me that he also had no idea what the hell she was talking about.

The point is astrophysicists have good reasons to postulate the existence of dark matter. Fritz Szwicky (sp?) was a really really smart guy. Even if us lowly mortals don't understand all the details, it doesn't negate the fact that there are very very good reasons to believe the existence of something that's making up most of the mass of the universe that, for the moment, we can't detect.

Never underestimate your own intelligence. I always try researching if there is something I'm interested in to try and understand all I can. But stay grounded; because you'll run into a lot of crackpot stuff and believe it if you’re not prone to scrutinizing what your being sold.

Edited by tesla, : edit added.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 7:29 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1984 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 72 of 113 (619463)
06-09-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by tesla
06-09-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Not so fast....
tesla writes:

Science is the tool to understanding the universe we are in. I see all the time how adamant people are about general theories being true because educated people have done some tests and confirmed it.


Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of the nature of science.

No theory is ever "true". In fact, the first lesson in any high school science class is that a scientific theory can never be proven. What a scientific theory does is give us the most accurate description of how nature works based on our best understanding of the data and results. You know what scientists do all the time? They try to disproven their theories. If a theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it might as well be useless.

I approach science with an open mind. A lot of 'appearances' can be misleading. That does not mean research has not been productive. It almost always pays off into furthering knowledge. What bugs me is how confident scientist relay very tentative theories to a public that trust them to be relaying facts and are let down. String theory is a good example.

Good god, man. Not only do you have a total lack of understanding of how science works, you are very persistent at keeping your misconceptions.

No single research is ever enough to verify anything. After the initial experiments and publication, other research groups will try to reproduce the results. After the results are thoroughly reproduced over and over, people will begin to take different approaches to producing the same results. People will try to take a look at the problem from different angles. Some people will continue to try to disprove it outright.

For example, my lab is working on a non-corrosive material that has a much higher yield strength than conventional steel. There have been some work done with this material by the army in armor technology. But I can confidently say that we are the first to work on applying the material to construction projects. The material has a much higher yield strength than steel, it is non-corrosive, doesn't rust, form a much higher bond strength with concrete (about twice as much as conventional steel), weighs about a quarter that of steel, and has a much higher elasticity than steel. What's more, it is as abundant as rocks if you know where to look, meaning the economic potential is unimaginable considering how expensive steel is. What's more, it lasts about 4 times longer than steel, thus reducing the maintanence cost by a bundle. Of course, if you're a non-engineer you will never understand the significance of everything I outlined above.

For now, the potential is overwhelming. Footing design would require a lot less reinforcement. Docks wouldn't have to be constantly maintained unlike steel which rust like a mofo in semi-marine environment. Towers wouldn't collapse so soon because of high temperature (ahem 911) because the material we're working on could resist temperature deformation up to twice that of steel.

After our tests and publication, other labs will try to produce the same results. It will be years, or decades, before there are enough confirmation for mainstream projects.

Look at fiber steel. Conventional bridges wouldn't exist without it, not to mention our power grid. And it took us almost 30 years to start using fiber steel from the time it was first brought up.

Another example is pervious concrete. I predict it will be another 20-30 years before mainstream society will adopt it.

You really have no idea the standards that are involved. Why not ask our resident physicists, biologists, chemists, etc. for their standards? I'm only able to give you a perspective from one branch of science.

They are producing real world results; that is why they are funded.

No, they're not. Name a modern invention, discovery, or anything at all that had resulted from creationist research. I'm not asking for scientific discoveries made by religious people. I'm asking for real genuine discoveries or inventions that were resulted from creationist research. I've been looking for years and I sure as hell never found any.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 7:57 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 9:51 PM Taz has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 73 of 113 (619466)
06-09-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
06-09-2011 9:22 PM


Re: Not so fast....
I said:

Science is the tool to understanding the universe we are in. I see all the time how adamant people are about general theories being true because educated people have done some tests and confirmed it.

you said:

Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of the nature of science.

And then you said:

No theory is ever "true". In fact, the first lesson in any high school science class is that a scientific theory can never be proven. What a scientific theory does is give us the most accurate description of how nature works based on our best understanding of the data and results. You know what scientists do all the time? They try to disproven their theories. If a theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it might as well be useless.

Which is just an elaboration on what I just said.

Then you got a whole bunch of elaboration on how science works, which does not take anything away from the fact its tentative, and finish by saying God has contributed nothing to society when there is tons of data you can choose to ignore or trust based on your belief system; which “because you can't show hard--in your hand—evidence: you will not accept; while at the same time: arguing that Invisible matter is the greatest possible explanation for the apparent lack of gravity to explain a visual phenomenon.

Let's agree we disagree on agreeing for the sake of agreement.

Edited by tesla, : structure

Edited by tesla, : I was just too rude. cleaning up.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 9:22 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 12:41 AM tesla has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 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 responded

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

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.

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/darkmatter.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020