Nonetheless, there is hardly a consensus that dark matter is exotic.
Well, actually there is a "consensus" that most of "dark matter" is "non baryonic" is mostly Lambda-ColdDarkMatter theories. That's rather "exotic" considering it's not composed of protons or neutrons. That leaves us with electrons (which I happen to believe exist out there in space), tiny things like neutrinos and what else?
Well, come on now, isn't that a wee vague? There's quite a large difference in suggesting that our technology is limited therefore our we don't really know, vs. claiming that most of the "dark matter" is non baryonic in nature.
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Wiki, most of the material is "non-baryonic" in nature. That's rather "exotic" don't you think?
Science advances, as always. The same astronomers you decry are the ones providing new evidence.
It's sort of like watching the fox guard the hen house. I think they go through an indoctrination and Phd time. --- Ok people, you talk about *ANYTHING BUT* "electricity". Terms like "magnetic reconnection" are in, terms like "electrical discharge" are out. Get it? Any questions? You wan't to be published right? It's remarkable that Birkeland was able to 'explain' and even simulate solar wind, "jets", coronal loops and aurora over 100 years ago in a lab using technologies of the earliest part of the 20th century, but astronomers today can't "explain" solar wind acceleration from a sphere in a vacuum. Science is not progressing at nearly the rate you imagine.
Like I said, if this new evidence invalidates the dark matter hypothesis, then so be it.
Dark matter does not exist other than perhaps "MACHO" forms of "Dark matter", neutrino forms of "non-baryonic dark matter" and I suppose electrons could qualify as "non-baryonic", but they emit photons so I think they're out of the question. Due to the anti-EU bias in the industry, it's *DEFINITELY* out of the question. If you believe in any other form of "dark matter", then you must empirically demonstrate your case. Hypothetical SUSY particles do not exist to my knowledge and in no empirical way have they been confirmed to exist. Whatever mass is "out there" is simply 'unknown'. It's not necessarily as WIKI claims that most of the material is non-baryonic. Just in the past few years we've learned that galaxies are twice as bright as we once thought and have many times more small stars per large stars than we "estimated". All we know for sure is that our mass estimation techniques are highly faulty and there is much more bayonic material in every galaxy than we once thought.
So you keep saying, but it is presumptuous to preclude any use our modern techniques can bring us. We simply do not know what future humans will discover. They could discover that dark matter doesn't exist, or they could discover that it absolutely does exist.
I'm curious at this point why you personally do not apply that same "faith" to the topic of God? Turn that statement around and imagine the impact of my using that same argument to you about the topic of God. Care to explain the apparent double standard here? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't get the feeling you'd consider that a convincing argument with the tables turned.
SUSY is a theory, it attempts to explain the evidence.
SUSY particles are "hypothetical" entities that have yet to appear anywhere near a controlled experiment. It's a "wild idea" at this point in time and standard particle physics theory has been well documented to hold water to this point in time, to all tested energy states. SUSY theory is a non standard branch of particle physics theory, and for good reason.
Astronomers take it several steps "out there" into speculationville by literally "making up" various properties and assigning them to hypothetical particles. They they then look at the sky and attempt to "Explain" what they see based on this plethora of made up properties wrapped in a thin veneer of acceptability using a substandard brand of particle physics theory and viola, they create a whole universe and claim to have explained it all down to the last 100,000 years or so and a couple of inches in diameter. Come on.
Since when is that a hallmark of truth?
It's pretty undeniable that electricity exists in nature and has a positive impact on human beings. You can pickup a number of consumer products at any Mall, any electrical appliance store, anywhere and see the value of scientific engineering. On the other hand, I am somehow supposed to believe that 96% of the presumed universe can't do anything or have any effect on humans today. When might they have some influence on humans? It's funny that nothing runs on "dark energy" yet it supposedly makes up 70+ percent of the universe. How do you know that this "acceleration energy" is unrelated to the EM field again? That is the one known force of nature that is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Plasma is an excellent conductor. How did your rule out the EM field as the cause of acceleration of a mostly plasma universe?
Without an objective standard your assessment is purely subjective and, thus, irrelevant.
Sorry, but it's not "irrelevant" that our technology is so limited we can't actually count stars in a galaxy. We have to "estimate" them based on a series of "assumptions" which we now know to have been false all along. The galaxies are twice as bright and far more heavily populated with stars than we once though and therefore any "missing mass" is likely due to our pitiful mass estimation attempts, not any "non-baryonic" material.
I am amazed frankly that you "lack belief" in God because you've never seen God move anything, but you buy into the whole inflation/dark energy things hook line and sinker and allow it (in fact encourage it) to be taught as "science" in the classroom. There seems like a giant empirical double standard going on here.
I need a cup of coffee so I'll stop here for the time being.
.
