Introducing "Dark Matter"

[Nabobalis]

I'm always fascinated when an atheist in particular can be comfortable with the idea that cosmological processes will forever be an act of faith on the part of the believer. Typically all the while they tend to lack belief in God based on empirical arguments. Fascinating.

Those processes won't be a matter of faith. I have no problems with scientists comparing their models to observations of the universe.

God has no evidence and has no empirical arguments.

 

[drjean]

Those processes won't be a matter of faith. I have no problems with scientists comparing their models to observations of the universe.

God has no evidence and has no empirical arguments.

GOD IS the greatest Empiricist!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

GOD IS the greatest Empiricist!

Quite.

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yes, sadly the 2012 scenario really does make sense. A lot of sense. The solid iron core would soak up many of the several nonillions (10^30) of solar neutrinos that pass through about 4 cm^2 every second. The thing about neutrinos is that they undergo spontaneous flavor oscillation - changing from heavier neutrinos to lighter neutrinos and vice versa. This is a weak force, and since the core of the earth is like the surface of a sun, it undergoes nuclear reactions also. The problem with the 2012 theory is it is particularly quiet on how the core would boil, causing magnetic field failure. I think because the how is scarier.

IF the core of the earth retains sufficient neutrinos (pounds of them are needed), then they will most likely act like STRANGLETS, transmutating matter on a sub-atomic level. This could be worse than the core boiling, because we may not dealing with iron anymore, but yet some goop of an element. Now, that requires many neutrinos, and even though we get nonillions from the sun per square centimeters every second, and even though reactors and natural radioactive decay provides even more, i dont think we have enough to cause the problem of 2012. But i guarentee truth is stranger than fiction, and i believe the real 2012 is weirder. Have you ever seen The Fifth Element?

Dara O'Briain talking about the movie 2012 and "the neutrinos have mutated":

Дара О'Бриен - о фильме 2012 - YouTube

 

[Elendur]

Dara O'Briain talking about the movie 2012 and "the neutrinos have mutated":

thank you for the video!

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, sadly the 2012 scenario really does make sense. A lot of sense. The solid iron core would soak up many of the several nonillions (10^30) of solar neutrinos that pass through about 4 cm^2 every second. The thing about neutrinos is that they undergo spontaneous flavor oscillation - changing from heavier neutrinos to lighter neutrinos and vice versa. This is a weak force, and since the core of the earth is like the surface of a sun, it undergoes nuclear reactions also. The problem with the 2012 theory is it is particularly quiet on how the core would boil, causing magnetic field failure. I think because the how is scarier.

IF the core of the earth retains sufficient neutrinos (pounds of them are needed), then they will most likely act like STRANGLETS, transmutating matter on a sub-atomic level. This could be worse than the core boiling, because we may not dealing with iron anymore, but yet some goop of an element. Now, that requires many neutrinos, and even though we get nonillions from the sun per square centimeters every second, and even though reactors and natural radioactive decay provides even more, i dont think we have enough to cause the problem of 2012. But i guarentee truth is stranger than fiction, and i believe the real 2012 is weirder. Have you ever seen The Fifth Element?

Yeah, but the Fifth Element was an old movie and I forgot what it said.

Does the neutrinos simply pass through the earth core? I am not sure how much heat it would add to the earth. What is the ratio between the number of neutrinos come from the sun and those come from the space? When neutrinos fly in space, will it lose energy and eventually landed somewhere? or stop moving in space?

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[Michael]

Those processes won't be a matter of faith.

Of course they are. Even if we ASSUME that your "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon is correct, there is no cause/effect connection between "acceleration" and "dark energy" except in CREATION LORE! Even if we accept that there is some "missing mass" to account for, there's no evidence that any of it is "exotic" in nature.

I have no problems with scientists comparing their models to observations of the universe.

When they start stuffing their "models" full of "dark" magic, I start to complain. It's not physics anymore, it's MATHEMATICAL MYTHOS. You might as well be claiming "God matter" did it since you can't even tell me where to get some "dark matter" to play with in real empirical experimentation.

God has no evidence and has no empirical arguments.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

That's just silly. There's way more evidence of God than there is for "dark" stuff.

 

[Michael]

"Dark matter? What dark matter?"

ESO - eso1217 - Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?

A team using the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at ESO’s La Silla Observatory, along with other telescopes, has mapped the motions of more than 400 stars up to 13 000 light-years from the Sun. From this new data they have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.
“The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun,” says team leader Christian Moni Bidin (Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Concepción, Chile). “But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”
Dark matter is a mysterious substance that cannot be seen, but shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.
Today it is widely accepted that this dark component constitutes about the 80% of the mass in the Universe [1], despite the fact that it has resisted all attempts to clarify its nature, which remains obscure. All attempts so far to detect dark matter in laboratories on Earth have failed.

"Religions" never require "empirical verification" in the lab or even successful testing based on pure observation. Religions, like faith in dark matter and invisible energies are never based upon empirical laboratory testing, but rather they are merely acts of faith on the part of the "believer".

 

[acropolis]

I love it when religious people try to attack science as being merely faith, like religion. When you're entire argument is "You're just as silly as we are!" it might be time to rethink your position.

 

[Michael]

I love it when religious people try to attack science as being merely faith, like religion. When you're entire argument is "You're just as silly as we are!" it might be time to rethink your position.

But my cosmology beliefs are NOTHING like mainstream beliefs. They are beliefs that put EMPIRICAL FACT before "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). Nothing I believe in is beyond empirical validation in controlled experimentation, if not now, at some point. That's nothing like believing in dark stuff that has no material affect on anything on Earth.

 

[acropolis]

But my cosmology beliefs are NOTHING like mainstream beliefs. They are beliefs that put EMPIRICAL FACT before "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). Nothing I believe in is beyond empirical validation in controlled experimentation, if not now, at some point. That's nothing like believing in dark stuff that has no material affect on anything on Earth.

The same methods that are used to describe the nature of the cosmos were used to discover dark matter. If you believe in anything in cosmology then you should accept that dark matter has real effects. I forget, why exactly are you so upset about dark matter?

edit: It's also impossible to know in advance what theories can and cannot be tested in the lab, so you don't have enough information to discount dark matter simply because you don't think it can ever be tested.

 

[Michael]

The same methods that are used to describe the nature of the cosmos were used to discover dark matter.

What does that even mean? You haven't "discovered" anything, in fact you're in hard core denial of those recent NON-FINDINGS! I've seen "creationists" use pure denial in debate before, but COME ON!

If you believe in anything in cosmology then you should accept that dark matter has real effects. I forget, why exactly are you so upset about dark matter?

I'm "upset" because there is no "dark matter" out there. There is "missing mass", and every indication that our METHODS related to mass estimation techniques are HORRIFICALLY FLAWED! It's like pointing at a UFO and INSISTING it must be from another planet!

edit: It's also impossible to know in advance what theories can and cannot be tested in the lab, so you don't have enough information to discount dark matter simply because you don't think it can ever be tested.

Dark "matter" is probably the very least of your worries in terms of empirical testing, however SUSY theory has pretty much been eliminated in it's "simplest" form. Compared to a dead inflation entity and claims about "space expansion", the whole dark matter concept isn't the worst of the mainstream offenses in term of empirical testing.

Even if we do find some exotic brands of matter in LHC experiments, there's absolutely no guarantee that any such new particles will have the necessary requirements (like longevity) to plug the gaps of mainstream theory.

My beliefs about the universe, cosmology theory and God are WAY more "testable" and therefore falsifiable than anything proposed by the mainstream today. All my beliefs are based on PURE EMPIRICAL forces of nature that exist right here on Earth, up to and including "awareness". Compared to the dark sky religion called "BB theory", you have nothing to complain about in terms of empirical physics.

 

[acropolis]

Please share some of your falsifiable beliefs about God.

 

[Michael]

Please share some of your falsifiable beliefs about God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

 

[Michael]

Please share some of your falsifiable beliefs about God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7648192/#post60238728

Keep in mind that on page one of this thread I cited three specific recent examples where the mainstream's "missing mass" turns out to be related to quite "visible" matter, whole SUNS in fact! I've also shown you recent evidence that no "exotic" matter is necessary to explain the mass we see near this solar system. How is it even POSSIBLE to falsify your "faith" in exotic brands of matter? When has the mainstream made any SERIOUS attempt to minimize the need for exotic brands of matter based on recent findings? It seems to me that the mainstream simply IGNORES the falsifications of mainstream theory altogether! Nothing seems to falsify the concept.

 

[acropolis]

That link has left me more confused, I think. You mention a few different scientific advances and then at the very end say these things simply god. Not following that.

Anyway, what kind of experiment could you build that would test the existence or nature of god?

"exotic" matter

You're getting hung up on the name 'dark matter.' It is called that because it, whatever it is, affects the curvature of space in ways that matter does. It is not necessary nor even implied that this substance is literally a material, it could be from some other mechanism, but it behaves as matter would but lacks the luminescence that matter should have so they call it 'dark.'