Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9014 total)
41 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 40 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?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 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 responded

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

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


(2)
Message 77 of 113 (619481)
06-10-2011 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by tesla
06-09-2011 9:51 PM


Re: Not so fast....
Well, I managed to read your post before you edited it. Unfortunately, I was temporarily suspended, so I couldn't respond. Your post made my eyes roll so far back that they got stuck for a few seconds...

Here is what you said from the other post.

quote:
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.

The way I interpret this is that you seem to imply there is something wrong with people being adamant about the theories because "educated people" have done some tests.

Here's why I responded the way I did. Nowadays, science encompasses just about everything in our collective library of knowledge. And as such, it is impossible for anyone person or group of persons to study everything. The last person who tried this was Leonardo Da Vinci, and this was back when science was in its infancy.

I sure as hell don't know jack poop about geology. And I am sure that most people out there don't even know how to begin to design a basic steel reinforced concrete beam. We all rely on the work of countless others to forward our collective knowledge.

For example, in our lab we have a machine that could put a million pounds of force on an object. I have no idea how the machine came to be or how the internal workings are set up. All I know is that we input a few instructions in the computer and the thing starts crushing our test beams and record the data.

We rely on the work of others in order to further our own work. I don't have to understand the mechanics of the machine in order to use it. And when something goes wrong, we call the mechanics to come out and fix it for us. You could say I trust those who designed and built the machine enough to stand next to it and use it on a regular basis.

This goes with other fields as well. It is not a bad thing to put our trusts in people who know what they are doing in their own fields. I'm not saying we should put our trust in any single person or group of persons. But the tentative results are pretty darn trustworthy. And no one will deny there are always room for improvement.

There is, however, something wrong with us putting our trust in people who try to speak authoratively on subjects outside their expertise. An example would be a southern baptist preacher trying to disprove biological evolution by using a bunch of strawman arguments.

The other problem I have with your attitude is that you make it sound like in science all it takes is some dumbass making some dumbass assertion and bam! we have a scientific theory. In order for something to become generally and tentatively accepted in the scientific community, it has to have been through hell and back. I still get the feeling you don't know just how rigorous the whole process is.

And those who dare try to falsify their data will very quickly be found out. Why? Because if nobody else could reproduce the results then the fakers are exposed. Those guys who claimed to have invented cold fusion couldn't even sell used cars after they were exposed. Not a single other person in the world could reproduce their supposed results. Go figure...

Going back to the topic of this thread, physicists have a very good reason to propose the existence of dark matter. Fritz Swicky, I think, was the first to make the argument. That was back in the 20s and the reasons for the existence of dark matter have not been disproven. So, you can imagine how sure they are that dark matter exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by tesla, posted 06-09-2011 9:51 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 06-10-2011 8:53 AM Taz has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 78 of 113 (619482)
06-10-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by slevesque
06-09-2011 10:47 PM


Just wondering. How come creationists don't try to make the argument that god is the dark matter we've been looking for or that the spiritual universe is the dark matter and dark energy we've been looking for?

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 83 by tesla, posted 06-10-2011 8:57 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 86 by 1.61803, posted 06-13-2011 12:22 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


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

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


Message 80 of 113 (619519)
06-10-2011 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
06-09-2011 10:27 PM


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

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.

Your problem is with simple English terminology, not science. The term "educated guess" would never be used to describe the belief that a kettle on the stove will boil.

If they don't know whether there's water in the kettle or whether the burner is on, then that makes it a guess, not an "educated guess."

An example of an educated guess: Your wife has left the house for work but forgotten the report she completed last night. Her work is far away and in the wrong direction for you, but you know she was low on gas (petrol) and so make an educated guess that you might be able to catch her at the gas station, also making an educated guess of which gas station because you know she likes the latte at the Mobil station.

But if you access the GPS in her cell then her location is no longer an educated guess, nor is it a verified hypothesis. In science we would call it a theory, I suppose, but in real life we would call it a fact that she is precisely where her GPS says she is.

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.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 10:27 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:23 AM Percy has responded

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


Message 81 of 113 (619521)
06-10-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by slevesque
06-09-2011 10:35 PM


slevesque writes:

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.

Okay, if you like. What's the point of this quibble? The only term available for the phenomenon is "dark matter." There's no other. If they eventually find out that the explanation is not a form of matter but, say, modified gravity waves, then the problem that they'll say was solved is "dark matter."

I'm not sure why the quibbling over terminology. Tesla claimed that alternative ideas weren't being considered for dark matter. If you want to claim that dark matter can only refer to solutions that involve matter then of course you are right because by your definition the consideration of alternative ideas is ruled out, but the fact of the matter is that alternative ideas are most definitely receiving attention. They're even described in the Wikipedia article on dark matter that you referenced.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 10:35 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:35 AM Percy has responded

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


Message 82 of 113 (619531)
06-10-2011 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Taz
06-10-2011 12:41 AM


Re: Not so fast....
The way I interpret this is that you seem to imply there is something wrong with people being adamant about the theories because "educated people" have done some tests.

You misinterpreted. What I'm pointing out is the educated people are approaching the matter with an open mind. Most scientists agree there is a discrepancy that warrants research. But they also know 'invisible matter' is reaching. So many scientists are looking for a better explanation.

I'm pointing out the cause of the phenomenon will more than likely turn out not to be Dark Matter.

The other problem I have with your attitude is that you make it sound like in science all it takes is some dumbass making some dumbass assertion and bam! we have a scientific theory. In order for something to become generally and tentatively accepted in the scientific community, it has to have been through hell and back. I still get the feeling you don't know just how rigorous the whole process is.

I wouldn't bother with science if I did not believe it has an opportunity to explain things. You have to remember where I'm posting at. I’ve been slammed, ignored and misinterpreted (not because what i said could not be identified in its context) but for the sake of one dogmatic position being argued over another.

My ultimate end is to discover truths. Science can only say truths are tentative, while recognizing some are reliably fact. I discriminate the validity of science by personal interpretations of how strong our understanding and perception is [in light of] the given science when making a determination of reliability.

There is, however, something wrong with us putting our trust in people who try to speak authoratively on subjects outside their expertise. An example would be a southern baptist preacher trying to disprove biological evolution by using a bunch of strawman arguments.

There is also something wrong with an evolutionist telling people there isn't a God because the fact that species evolve means there never could have been a design. That [Evolution of species] is potentially a design. When a scientists rules out God on the basis they are an expert in their field of science, how does that make them an expert on God? Of course attacking anyone’s core beliefs will cause peoples blood pressures to rise. Humanity at any age can be immature and say something retarded when angry.

As for 'dumbass' assertions: It does happen all the time. That is why scientist’s assumptions, assertions, and theories go through certain channels before it can be approved for research.

Going back to the topic of this thread, physicists have a very good reason to propose the existence of dark matter. Fritz Swicky, I think, was the first to make the argument. That was back in the 20s and the reasons for the existence of dark matter have not been disproven. So, you can imagine how sure they are that dark matter exists.

That's fine. I reserve the right to not be convinced until further notice.

Edited by tesla, : typing repairs.


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 77 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 12:41 AM Taz has not yet responded

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


Message 83 of 113 (619533)
06-10-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taz
06-10-2011 12:48 AM


Because most creationists believe God, heaven, and angels are forever out of reach of mankind unless the contact comes from God to mankind, not Mankind to God.


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 78 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 12:48 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 113 (619539)
06-10-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
06-09-2011 2:57 PM


slevesque writes:

vulcan was posited to be on the other side of the sun if I remember correctly

No, Vulcan was supposed to be inside the orbit of Mercury. It could not possibly remain on the opposite side of the sun from us. Vulcan was thought to be too close to the sun to easily detect.

Vulcan was only one of a number of possible explanations for Mercury's perihelion anomaly being investigated. Others included a fast rotating solar core and solar oblateness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 2:57 PM slevesque has not yet responded

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


Message 85 of 113 (619552)
06-10-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
06-09-2011 10:27 PM


Re: Not so fast....
I guess you could call it a verified educated guess.

Who is playing word games now?

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.

I am 37 years old. Once I was just 6 months old. At one time I was a baby. Does that mean I am still a baby?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2011 10:27 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2011 1:42 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 86 of 113 (619946)
06-13-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taz
06-10-2011 12:48 AM


Taz writes:

Just wondering. How come creationists don't try to make the argument that god is the dark matter we've been looking for or that the spiritual universe is the dark matter and dark energy we've been looking for?

Because silly it contains the word DARK.

*SNL Church Lady voice*
That would indicate, could it be??? Satan!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 12:48 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 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 responded

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 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 responded

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 89 of 113 (620070)
06-14-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
06-10-2011 8:01 AM


Okay, if you like. What's the point of this quibble? The only term available for the phenomenon is "dark matter." There's no other. If they eventually find out that the explanation is not a form of matter but, say, modified gravity waves, then the problem that they'll say was solved is "dark matter."

The point of the quibble, is that you thought everybody had a wrong understanding of the term dark matter (you stated this multiple times) and that this is what was making the discussion between tesla and Taq difficult. The point is that you were wrong, and that the term was correctly understood as including only solutions that posited some form of matter as an explanation.

I'm not sure why the quibbling over terminology. Tesla claimed that alternative ideas weren't being considered for dark matter. If you want to claim that dark matter can only refer to solutions that involve matter then of course you are right because by your definition the consideration of alternative ideas is ruled out, but the fact of the matter is that alternative ideas are most definitely receiving attention. They're even described in the Wikipedia article on dark matter that you referenced.

No, I am right because this is how the term is universally understood in and out of the scientific community.

And I never claimed alternative ideas were ruled out, just that this was an example of the power of a paradigm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 06-10-2011 8:01 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-14-2011 9:08 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3332 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 90 of 113 (620071)
06-14-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Taq
06-10-2011 11:18 AM


Re: Not so fast....
Who is playing word games now?

I'm just saying that the concepts of hypothesis and eduacted guess seem to be no different except from the fact hypothesis is used when relating to science. And in that case saying a hypothesis is an educated guess is acceptable IMO.

I am 37 years old. Once I was just 6 months old. At one time I was a baby. Does that mean I am still a baby?

You did notice I used the past tense right ? I said it WAS and educated guess.

SO yes, it does mean you WERE a baby.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 11:18 AM Taq 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 © 2020