- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.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.
Nonetheless, it remains a possibility. In the 17[sup]th[/sup] century, there was no need for quantum theory, either.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.
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?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.
A minute ago you said it was experimental error. Now you're saying it's a slip in the mathematics. Which?We simply blew the calculations.
Both are possibilities. Try to remember that.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.
We know the mass is there, how much is there, and where it is.You simply "assumed" these properties by the way.
We know that light can travel through it.
We know that light isn't emitted from it.
What did I assume, exactly?
Uhuh.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.
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]"?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.
My name is a hallmark of my previous faith, nothing more. And the correct moniker is the adjective 'Wiccan', not 'a Wicca'.Then again if you are a Wicca, maybe you aren't actually an atheist.
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.I do find it fascinating when atheists put their faith in "dark energy" but not God. That is amusing from an empirical perspective.
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.
Upvote
0