Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The less someone knows about science the more cartoon physics rules his world.I wonder does Michael realise that finding formerly "missing" matter in ordinary stars and plasma in no way invalidates the current models of the universe. It just moves some of the matter whose effects we seem to be seeing from the "dark matter" placeholder category into a different classification.
The less someone knows about science the more cartoon physics rules his world.
It is dark only for animals (including humans) that see only the visible spectrum of light. If one could see the whole spectrum of light then darkness would be something unknown to him.Indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Michael, I'm only going to bother responding to one of your points, I don't have time for the rest, they're all more than adequately debunked by professionals in multiple fields.
On your ludicrous claim that whatever is causing the mass effects observed in the universe is not allowed to emit photons because of the particular placeholder name it has been given:
It is dark outside right now. If I close the curtains in my room and turn off the light, it will be dark in here. That doesn't mean that nothing is emitting photons. If doesn't mean nothing is reflecting or diffusing or refracting photons. Those things are not the definition of the word.
What's next? Are you going to give out about people saying the sun can be approximated as a black body emitter in certain applications, even though it's actually very bright?!!
Indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Michael, I'm only going to bother responding to one of your points, I don't have time for the rest, they're all more than adequately debunked by professionals in multiple fields.
On your ludicrous claim that whatever is causing the mass effects observed in the universe is not allowed to emit photons because of the particular placeholder name it has been given:
It is dark outside right now. If I close the curtains in my room and turn off the light, it will be dark in here. That doesn't mean that nothing is emitting photons. If doesn't mean nothing is reflecting or diffusing or refracting photons. Those things are not the definition of the word.
What's next? Are you going to give out about people saying the sun can be approximated as a black body emitter in certain applications, even though it's actually very bright?!!
What Is Dark Matter?
By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the Universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~70% dark energy, ~25% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter?
We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.
The less someone knows about science the more cartoon physics rules his world.
So they call it "Dark" because they haven't been able to detect it.
Evidently they lied.
The most widely accepted explanation for these phenomena is that dark matter exists and that it is most likely[3] composed of heavy particles that interact only through gravity and possibly the weak force; however, alternate explanations have been proposed, and there is not yet sufficient experimental evidence to determine which is correct. Many experiments to detect proposed dark matter particles through non-gravitational means are underway.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-bertone_hooper_silk-4
So sayeth the man who insists that snakes talked and the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth and whales are fish, bats are fowl, etc.Sorry, but NASA is the one peddling cartoon physics, and making claims that are now demonstrated to be *false*, *false* falsified false!
So sayeth the man who insists that snakes talked and the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth and whales are fish, bats are fowl, etc.
Gee, that page that says they haven't been able to detect it sure contradicts my point that they hadn't detected it...
Oh wait...
A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation. Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe,[9] which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms. It also cannot interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces; in particular, dark matter particles do not carry any electric charge. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("Big Bang nucleosynthesis")[3] and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection").[10]
You claim NASA uses cartoon physics and have the gall to call my post strawman fantasiesHuh? You're clearly confusing my personal beliefs with your own strawman fantasies about talking snakes. I've honestly never seen anyone so emotionally attached to a talking snake as you seem to be.
I'd have sworn we already covered the book infallibility issue.
Sure, bash the messenger with completely made up nonsense that doesn't even apply to the messenger, but whatever you do, don't even think about questioning the mainstream dogma.
You claim NASA uses cartoon physics and have the gall to call my post strawman fantasies
Baloney. Not only is it irrational to be claiming something that cannot by definition emit photons, emits photons, I even provided you with no less than five empirical (published) alternatives to choose from to explain cosmic redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, Chen's plasma redshift and the movement of objects. Any or all of these empirically documented causes of redshift "could" have (and must have) some effect on redshifted photons.You are essentially doing what every creationist does, and that is warp the facts to suit your interpretation of your religion. You of course are doing it by disguising your posts in such a way as to look scientific when in fact it is nothing more than creationist mumbo jumbo.
Ya, and when NASA identifies a known source of "dark energy", or quits claiming that "WIMPS did it", let me know. Until then, they are guilty as hell."Thou shalt not bear false witness" is the one cardinal sin all creationist sites are guilty of.
arXiv.org SearchNASA has given mankind much in scientific progress; what is your contribution?
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apparently you are blissfully unaware of the problems created in BB theory if you start to assume all matter is baryonic in nature. The mainstream theory goes to hell in a handbasket if all the matter is "normal" matter.
And your point is... what?
Did I say anything about baryons?
My point is that you're blissfully naive if you think they can just get rid of the "non-baryonic" components of their theory, and have the rest of the math work properly. It's not like that. All their delicate calculations related to elemental formation and the power spectrum computations related to the CMBR are heavily dependent upon "magic matter" to make them work correctly. They can't just claim "normal matter is responsible for what we observe", and not have it ruin massive parts of their claims. One of the key problems with a mathematical model that depends on magic matter, is you can't remove the magic from the matter and achieve the same results.
The reason they can't and won't budge from their original magical matter figures is that it messes up massive parts of their entire theory if they do so. Better they just sweep all the empirical evidence of plasma redshift right under the carpet by calling it a "dark energy camera", and better that they just "pretend" that their galaxy mass estimation techniques were not just falsified by new technology over the past 5 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?