Ask a physicist anything.

Wiccan_Child · #41 19th October 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Michael

I'll concede for the sake of argument that we can measure the amount of "missing mass" in lensing data, and also thereby eliminate MOND theory from consideration as it relates galactic rotation patterns. I'll even concede that there is a logical and empirical way to "test" SUSY theory via LHC and whatever future experiments we might perform at the level of particle physics. So far however no SUSY theory has been shown to be valid and standard particle physics theory 'explains' everything we've seen in lab experiments to date. No new exotic forms of matter are necessary.

Who said anything about exotic matter? Astronomers may posit that dark matter is exotic, but, aside from public misunderstanding, no one claims that it actually is exotic. All we know is that it's there, and that it's dark.

Originally Posted by Michael

In an Occum's razor argument, as it relates to particle physics theory itself, SUSY theory is toast. There is really no need for it.

Nonetheless, it remains a possibility. In the 17^th century, there was no need for quantum theory, either.

Originally Posted by Michael

Only astronomers seem to have a great need to find a new and exotic form of matter to validate their original "approximations" of the amount of mass in a galaxy. If they can't find some exotic material, their theory is DOA. While there is evidence of "missing mass" in lensing data, our technology is still *extremely* primitive. We can't even count individual stars in distant galaxies, we have to "guestimate" them.

Primitive compared to whom? It seems you have an unreasonably high standard against which you are holding modern science. But in any case, we go where the evidence leads us. If future experiments prove that our current observations are flawed, then so be it. But don't you think it's a little presumptuous to dismiss current data just because a) you don't like the conclusions, and b) there is a margin of error?

Originally Posted by Michael

We simply blew the calculations.

A minute ago you said it was experimental error. Now you're saying it's a slip in the mathematics. Which?

Originally Posted by Michael

That doesn't mean the some new or exotic form of matter exists, it only means our estimation techniques are primitive and need to be adjusted.

Both are possibilities. Try to remember that.

Originally Posted by Michael

You simply "assumed" these properties by the way.

We know the mass is there, how much is there, and where it is.
We know that light can travel through it.
We know that light isn't emitted from it.
What did I assume, exactly?

Originally Posted by Michael

That really an ad hoc assertion since you can't produce either one, let alone demonstrate DE or DM do not emit or absorb EM radiation. You simply *ASSUME* this is true, otherwise standard theory is DOA.

Uhuh.

Originally Posted by Michael

I am really fascinated by that rationalization and the fact you also display an atheist icon. If you were a theist, it wouldn't be ironic that you put your faith in "unseen mass and energy" but you refuse to consider the possibility that the unseen mass and energy is also aware and aware of you.

I, too, am fascinated: how do you know what I do and do not refuse? How do you know that I "refuse to consider the possibility that [dark matter] is... aware of [me]"?

Originally Posted by Michael

Then again if you are a Wicca, maybe you aren't actually an atheist.

My name is a hallmark of my previous faith, nothing more. And the correct moniker is the adjective 'Wiccan', not 'a Wicca'.

Originally Posted by Michael

I do find it fascinating when atheists put their faith in "dark energy" but not God. That is amusing from an empirical perspective.

There is absolutely no evidence for God (prove me wrong), yet there is evidence for dark matter. No one puts their faith in either: we follow the evidence and the logic.

It's amusing that you chastise us for putting our 'faith' in a scientific theory, yet you yourself are Christian! Hypocrisy is an ugly colour, Michael.

AV1611VET · #42 19th October 2009, 04:01 PM

Have you ever met Nigel Short?

Wiccan_Child · #43 19th October 2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Have you ever met Nigel Short?

Yes. As a Briton, I have met all other British people, since we all live within five miles of the Queen.

But no, I haven't met him. I hear he's an OK chess player, though.

AV1611VET · #44 19th October 2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

Yes. As a Briton, I have met all other British people, since we all live within five miles of the Queen.

LOL --- point taken.

AV1611VET · #45 19th October 2009, 04:42 PM

Since most people like to try and find the Bible's Achilles Heel, I think this is a fair question:

What is evolution's Achilles Heel?

(Isn't something considered outside the realm of science, if it doesn't have an Achilles Heel? Or falseality, or whatever you call it?)

Thistlethorn · #46 19th October 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Since most people like to try and find the Bible's Achilles Heel, I think this is a fair question:

What is evolution's Achilles Heel?

(Isn't something considered outside the realm of science, if it doesn't have an Achilles Heel? Or falseality, or whatever you call it?)

Rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

AV1611VET · #47 19th October 2009, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Thistlethorn

Rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

Okay, thanks.

I forgot about that thread.

Wiccan_Child · #48 19th October 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Since most people like to try and find the Bible's Achilles Heel, I think this is a fair question:

What is evolution's Achilles Heel?

(Isn't something considered outside the realm of science, if it doesn't have an Achilles Heel? Or falseality, or whatever you call it?)

Falsifiability. It's a trait that all good scientific theories have. It means that the theory can make predictions about what would happen in a given situation, and that we can go out and create that situation to see if reality agrees with the theory. If the theory is right, then it is bolstered by this new evidence. If the theory is wrong, then it is summarily executed before a Grand High Jury of Atheists.

Evolution can be falsified any number of ways, but anything which throws a spanner into the tree of life we've developed would work. Reptiles with mammary glands would wreck havoc with how we organise life, as would fossilised bunnies in pre-Cambrian rock.

That said, they would only force us to re-examine how life evolved, and how things are related. That life evolved from a single common ancestor is much more robust, and would require something much better.