Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is of course. @Justatruthseeker was exactly right

Dark Matter is the name for a repair to a model, pending "explanation" - which for want of doubt is not explanation at all, it actually means "repairing the broken model" with somethign that fits all observations.

When the model is finally repaired, is just as likely that the repair will come by repairing the mass matter axiomatic relationship' or the underlying cosmology equations as it will to repairing the quantity of matter. ( the dark matter conjecture)

Not least because no evidence has been found that "mass" can be attributed to any new axiomatic species of non interacting particle existing in empty space to fix the problem. It is all just conjecture like abiogenesis is just conjecture.

And before you begin an unscientific rant.

Relativity was just such a change to the model that did not add more matter. It added mass to the matter. It redefined the axiomatic mass matter relationship , so things have more mass when faster -( in addition to rewriting the rest of cosmology because the model didnt work)
Its just a model. It is not even unique. Dont confuse it with the universe, an alltogether stranger beast.

It is BECAUSE we understand the state of cosmology Justatruthseeker and I say what we do.

Start thinking of science as a voice recognition package. As a model of speech. It never becomes the speaker. Or the listener. It has only the limited vocabulary you put into it.
If all you put in is four words, it will think you said one of them, or conclude its discriminator just cannot tell between. It cannot answer word "God" unless you put it in the package - nothing to do with whether God is real or not. So if "God" is not one of its four words, it will never say it in answer to any question!

So when science "explains" something it is just the same : it is answering your question "what is this" by saying..gravity ...or electric field ...or electron . Because those are all you put in. It can only answer in terms of the axiomatic species you put in. If "God" is not put in the model, it will never say "God" as an answer - so in that sense deny God exists - regardless of whether He exists!

Trouble is , sometimes it makes a pigs ear. The equations work with some observations better than others. . You ask how heavy is "this" . And for far off galazy rotation It answers in mass, FAR more or less than other phenomena say. It comes to different conclusions In short its sums dont add up. you call the difference "dark matter" but all it is is an error.

Sooner or later you have to mess with the model, to make it all add up. Then it will "explain" ( with a non explanation in philosophical terms) by telling you what you already know because you put the error correction in! Dont confuse that with the universe. It is what it is. Even when the equations of a bad model dont add up. The universe does what it is seen to do. Or not sometimes. So the model will get fixed, and it is just as possible mass/matter will re revisited, or the cosmological equations, as it is, that mass will be added with or without new axiomatic species of field or particle.. Just like relativity did.

Just like our voice recognition package.You mess with it, add a few words, mess with the recognition. And abracadabra it now has five words it can discrimanate instead of four. And it will say "God" but only if you put "God" it in. Nothing to do with Gods existence whether it says "God" or not.. It never becomes the speaker, just by recognising all the words. It is just a model of language!
Science will never become the univere. It too is just a model - it will ony give out what you put in, so is not an explanation at all.

Trouble is they dont teach schools philosophy of science.
High time they did, so others like Subjunction get a grounding in what science can and cannot tell them. Which is why people confuse a concept in a model "dark matter" with reality.

Oh my. Another long screed where a an total ignorance of science is displayed again along with a false accusation. Creationists always seem to end up denying all of science and then try to claim that others are not following the scientific method.

Project much?

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh my. Another long screed where a an total ignorance of science is displayed again along with a false accusation. Creationists always seem to end up denying all of science and then try to claim that others are not following the scientific method.

Project much?

Them as can do. Them as cant - insult them that can!
Seriously. Read what I said about the philosophy of science and models.

Also consider. There is no unique model.
I can just as easily redefine mass matter relationship as modify other relationships.
Anyone used to modelling understands what are called "canonical forms."

That is you can redefine axiomatic definitions, and redefine the relations between them, and end up with a completely different set of equations that still work - which are the canonical forms, and clever math can produce an infinite number of them. ( or dont work - or only just work - non linear time variant models are only ever imprecise). Indeed its worse than that. Hawking argues there can only ever be conflicting models that dont add up.

Anyone that ever did such complex physical numerical modelling has serious reservations about the oversimplistic view of optimization that unqualified people like Dawkins peddle in respect of evolution development by incremental survival of fittest. In short the ideas dont work - as anyone that tried them knows..

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you dont believe in "convergent evolution" then? wow. thats new for me.

Convergent evolution, is not about the exact same genetic sequences and mechanisms, evolving twice.

It is about evolving the same function multiple times, but with different underlying mechanisms.

Like eyesight, which evolved several times independently.
But each of these sets of eyes work differently.

Same with wings:

Convergent evolution of flight capable wings
The function is the same. The mechanism isn't.

This is such a basic concept that it's yet another tell that while you feel qualified enough to argue against evolution, you barely reach early high-school knowledge levels on the topic!!!

if so you agree that the creation model can be falsified and therefore its scientifiic . thanks.

No. Words in a bronze age book unfalsifiably claimed to come from an unfalsifiable all powerfull deity, aren't scientific.

Apparantly, the point flew miles over your head again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Convergent evolution, is not about the exact same genetic sequences and mechanisms, evolving twice.

It is about evolving the same function multiple times, but with different underlying mechanisms.

Like eyesight, which evolved several times independently.
But each of these sets of eyes work differently.

Same with wings:

View attachment 244963

Convergent evolution of flight capable wings
The function is the same. The mechanism isn't.

This is such a basic concept that it's yet another tell that while you feel qualified enough to argue against evolution, you barely reach early high-school knowledge levels on the topic!!!

We agree, a Designer would use the same basic functions that you confuse as divergent evolution. It is a principle of basic engineering, merely adjust what is a great design to different circumstances..... Not redesign the wheel every time a wheel is needed......

This is such a basic concept in every single branch of science I am surprised you ignore it...... Ahhh, but if you didn't ignore the basic principle of all of science you might have to admit common design, not the fantasy of divergent evolution......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh my. Another long screed where a an total ignorance of science is displayed again along with a false accusation. Creationists always seem to end up denying all of science and then try to claim that others are not following the scientific method.

Project much?

You are not following it. How many falsifications do you require your model is wrong? 13 null results isn't enough?????

It only took 1 to falsify ether theories, even if it was based upon a grievous conceptual flaw..... The Michelson-Morley Experiment is really a joke, one you don't even "get".....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is of course. @Justatruthseeker was exactly right

Dark Matter is the name for a repair to a model, pending "explanation" - which for want of doubt is not explanation at all, it actually means "repairing the broken model" with somethign that fits all observations.

When the model is finally repaired, is just as likely that the repair will come by repairing the mass matter axiomatic relationship' or the underlying cosmology equations as it will to repairing the quantity of matter. ( the dark matter conjecture)

Not least because no evidence has been found that "mass" can be attributed to any new axiomatic species of non interacting particle existing in empty space to fix the problem. It is all just conjecture like abiogenesis is just conjecture.

And before you begin an unscientific rant.

Relativity was just such a change to the model that did not add more matter. It added mass to the matter. It redefined the axiomatic mass matter relationship , so things have more mass when faster -( in addition to rewriting the rest of cosmology because the model didnt work)
Its just a model. It is not even unique. Dont confuse it with the universe, an alltogether stranger beast.

It is BECAUSE we understand the state of cosmology Justatruthseeker and I say what we do.

They much prefer their unfalsifiable Fairie Dust then having to do REAL science....

Notice they ignore my question every single time about how much weakly interacting mass in a halo they need? While ignoring a plasma halo of twice the mass of the galaxy itself (just in plasma at 2 million K and higher) that interacts weakly gravitationally.

95% of cosmology is pseudoscience...... They know it, it is why all their protestations always turn to ad-hominem remarks, they got no science to argue with.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Them as can do. Them as cant - insult them that can!
Seriously. Read what I said about the philosophy of science and models.

You are projecting again. I have explained your errors to you in the past and you simply ignore your errors. When you pretend that you have won arguments that you lost there really is no point in listening to you any longer.

Also consider. There is no unique model.
I can just as easily redefine mass matter relationship as modify other relationships.
Anyone used to modelling understands what are called "canonical forms."

Really? I doubt if you can. You appear to reject relativity now and it goes far past anything that you are capable of. It is a theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times.

That is you can redefine axiomatic definitions, and redefine the relations between them, and end up with a completely different set of equations that still work - which are the canonical forms, and clever math can produce an infinite number of them. ( or dont work - or only just work - non linear time variant models are only ever imprecise). Indeed its worse than that. Hawking argues there can only ever be conflicting models that dont add up.

Anyone that ever did such complex physical numerical modelling has serious reservations about the oversimplistic view of optimization that unqualified people like Dawkins peddle in respect of evolution development by incremental survival of fittest. In short the ideas dont work - as anyone that tried them knows..

More nattering. Why even bother.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now read what was ACTUALLY written. Without the kneejerk argument tinted glasses on.

What I said was - one impact of relativitiy was a redefinition of matter to mass. This is basic science. Read about it in any text book.
That as particles get faster, they also get heavier. As relativity shows it is not the first time these relationships have been revisited.

The errors in the cosmological mass model might be solved in a variety of ways.
Not just searching for missing mass.. Possibly redefinining mass, or relationships..

One fascinating paper written years ago (loudly objected to by the physics community , as indeed was mulitverse when first postulated, as indeed was big bang by most) questioned how many of the problems would disappear if the speed of light was assumed constant everywhere, but had changed over the course of history. Some anomalies disappeared if speed of light had varied..

Not as stupid as it sounds. Since the permittivity and permeability of free space, rather depend on whether the matrix of dimensions has been stable (ie has the fabric of space itself stretched or shrunk).and if it has, light speed might also change with it. Indeed it is one of the problems for dark matter or energy either as a field or particles - how to define it in such a way it doesnt interact at all, so not changing permeability or permittivity. Dark matter is problematic.

It is just a model. Whatever works.

You may be in for a surprise.

Give a wise man instruction, and they will become yet wiser.

Give someone on this forum instruction, and most become more argumentative, if they think their world view is threatened. But it isnt in this case. I am just stating how the present cosmological model works.

It is your choice which you are.

You have an amazingly closed mind: you could never be a scientist.

You are projecting again. I have explained your errors to you in the past and you simply ignore your errors. When you pretend that you have won arguments that you lost there really is no point in listening to you any longer.



Really? I doubt if you can. You appear to reject relativity now and it goes far past anything that you are capable of. It is a theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times.




More nattering. Why even bother.

 

[Mountainmike]

They much prefer their unfalsifiable Fairie Dust then having to do REAL science....

Notice they ignore my question every single time about how much weakly interacting mass in a halo they need? While ignoring a plasma halo of twice the mass of the galaxy itself (just in plasma at 2 million K and higher) that interacts weakly gravitationally.

95% of cosmology is pseudoscience...... They know it, it is why all their protestations always turn to ad-hominem remarks, they got no science to argue with.....

The sad thing is most of the objectors dont know enough science to know most of it is conjecture or pseudoscience! Indeed.....the first time "big bang" was raised - the astronomic community had an apoplectic fit! But some of us had read about it in a book written a few thousand years ago, so we already knew. The astronomic community came on board in the end. Now they are arguing why not whether! They now accept it happened at least!

 

[Aman777]

Evolution is a fact, the ToE is an incredibly well-supported scientific theory on how evolution happen. Not accepting science is denying physical reality, not a good place to be.

Thanks for your prejudiced opinion. Today's Science is woefully behind what God told us in Genesis. God tells us He created but you want us to accept that He was wrong and you, a mere mortal, know more than God, the Creator. Only Trump has that kind of Ego.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now read what was ACTUALLY written. Without the kneejerk argument tinted glasses on.

Oh my, starting with personal attacks.

What I said was - one impact of relativitiy was a redefinition of matter to mass. This is basic science. Read about it in any text book.
That as particles get faster, they also get heavier. As relativity shows it is not the first time these relationships have been revisited.

Hardly, it is not a "redefinition" It was a clarification based upon evidence and experiment. The theory of relativity gave us a way to test and verify this concept. And it has been tested and verified countless times.

The errors in the cosmological mass model might be solved in a variety of ways.
Not just searching for missing mass.. Possibly redefinining mass, or relationships..

What "errors"? By using that term you seem to be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. It is possible for mass to be "redefined" again. But if it is to be done it is through applying the scientific method. That is what led to the hypothesis of dark mater being the cause. That has been tested and confirmed. One thing about confirmation in science, it only tells us that an concept has passed a test. It is not definitive. But Dark Matter has the edge in that it has been tested and confirmed in several ways. The Electric Universe believers do not seem to be able to do that.

One fascinating paper written years ago (loudly objected to by the physics community , as indeed was mulitverse when first postulated, as indeed was big bang by most) questioned how many of the problems would disappear if the speed of light was assumed constant everywhere, but had changed over the course of history. Some anomalies disappeared if speed of light had varied..

And all sorts of new problems were introduced. Worse yet there is no mechanism for such a concept. When a concept introduces more problems than it solves scientists tend to reject it. Once again, find a way to test and verify the concept.

Not as stupid as it sounds. Since the permittivity and permeability of free space, rather depend on whether the matrix of dimensions has been stable (ie has the fabric of space itself stretched or shrunk).and if it has, light speed might also change with it. Indeed it is one of the problems for dark matter or energy either as a field or particles - how to define it in such a way it doesnt interact at all, so not changing permeability or permittivity. Dark matter is problematic.

It is just a model. Whatever works.

You may be in for a surprise.

Give a wise man instruction, and they will become yet wiser.

Give someone on this forum instruction, and most become more argumentative, if they think their world view is threatened. But it isnt in this case. I am just stating how the present cosmological model works.

It is your choice which you are.

You have an amazingly closed mind: you could never be a scientist.

And once again, until you come up with a testable hypothesis you are in the realm of "Not even wrong". In other words a worthless idea that creates more problems than it solves and is not supported by evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

No personal attack. You suggested I was arguing against relativity, which means you had not read what I wrote before argue, I simply referred to how relativity is built into the mass/matter model, without pretending more fictional matter!

I thought you might be interested in some interesting science Subduction Zone - instead of the endless contradiction.

And yes there was a mechanism conjectured -ive hinted at the essence of it -
And the essence of the SERIOUS problems for the dark matter hypothesis which certainly creates more problems than it solves. So the error in mass prediction remains unexplained bar pure conjecture. So right boot, wrong foot on that one.

Never mind you dont seem to have an interest.

Oh my, starting with personal attacks.



Hardly, it is not a "redefinition" It was a clarification based upon evidence and experiment. The theory of relativity gave us a way to test and verify this concept. And it has been tested and verified countless times.



What "errors"? By using that term you seem to be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. It is possible for mass to be "redefined" again. But if it is to be done it is through applying the scientific method. That is what led to the hypothesis of dark mater being the cause. That has been tested and confirmed. One thing about confirmation in science, it only tells us that an concept has passed a test. It is not definitive. But Dark Matter has the edge in that it has been tested and confirmed in several ways. The Electric Universe believers do not seem to be able to do that.



And all sorts of new problems were introduced. Worse yet there is no mechanism for such a concept. When a concept introduces more problems than it solves scientists tend to reject it. Once again, find a way to test and verify the concept.



And once again, until you come up with a testable hypothesis you are in the realm of "Not even wrong". In other words a worthless idea that creates more problems than it solves and is not supported by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No personal attack. You suggested I was arguing against relativity, which means you had not read what I wrote before argue, I simply referred to how relativity is built into the mass/matter model, without pretending more fictional matter!

I thought you might be interested in some interesting science Subduction Zone - instead of the endless contradiction.

And yes there was a mechanism conjectured -ive hinted at the essence of it -
And the essence of the SERIOUS problems for the dark matter hypothesis which certainly creates more problems than it solves. So the error in mass prediction remains unexplained bar pure conjecture. So right boot, wrong foot on that one.

Never mind you dont seem to have an interest.

If you could support your claims I might have an interest, but you continually get so much wrong that it gets rather tedious correcting you.

 

[Mountainmike]

So which part of
"relativity changed the mass matter axiomatic model - making faster things heavier"
or
"speed of light has axiomatic relationship with permeability and permittivity both of which can be affected by matter"
so
"it is one of the problems in postulating additional matter fields or particles in free space - which it clearly is a difficulty - how matter can be truly unreactive.
or
"galaxies dont spin at the right speed / have the right shape for the known matter"
so
"there is presently an difference between observed matter and that necessary for the axiomatic predicted behaviour of galaxies"
and
"several models for dark matter have been postulated, none of them have so far found evidence to support them"


What Do you disagree with?
And if not, now kindly admit I was correct in what I said!

You have no (scientific) basis to disagree with any of it.

If you disagree it is in spite of science not because of it.

Your entire response is always adhominem, which is sad on a forum about sciecne. There is not a single piece of other argument science or critical thinking in your post. And what about the ones who "Like" the adhominem above. Would any of them care to argue with me on the above list? I doubt it: they know they would lose!


Difference between us subjunction is I am (a now retired) postgrad scientist.
I know about this stuff.

If you could support your claims I might have an interest, but you continually get so much wrong that it gets rather tedious correcting you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So which part of
"relativity changed the mass matter axiomatic model - making faster things heavier"
or
"speed of light has axiomatic relationship with permeability and permittivity both of which can be affected by matter"
so
"it is one of the problems in postulating additional matter fields or particles in free space - which it clearly is a difficulty - how matter can be truly unreactive.
or
"galaxies dont spin at the right speed / have the right shape for the known matter"
so
"there is presently an difference between observed matter and that necessary for the axiomatic predicted behaviour of galaxies"
and
"several models for dark matter have been postulated, none of them have so far found evidence to support them"


What Do you disagree with?
And if not, now kindly admit I was correct in what I said!

You have no (scientific) basis to disagree with any of it.

If you disagree it is in spite of science not because of it.

Your entire response is always adhominem, which is sad on a forum about sciecne. There is not a single piece of other argument science or critical thinking in your post. And what about the ones who "Like" the adhominem above. Would any of them care to argue with me on the above list? I doubt it: they know they would lose!


Difference between us subjunction is I am (a now retired) postgrad scientist.
I know about this stuff.

You could start by learning how to use the quote function properly. A "postgrad scientist" should have no problem with that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really? I doubt if you can. You appear to reject relativity now and it goes far past anything that you are capable of. It is a theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times.

It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.

But then you reject the very theory you claim to be so accurate by adding 95% Fairie Dust to it outside the solar system when it needed none of it to be accurate. So only in the solar system did it meet those tests of accuracy. Outside the solar system you had to fudge it with 95% ad-hoc theory that wasn't needed where it tested to an extreme accuracy.

So I ask again, why do you continue to ignore that accuracy and instead make a mockery of it?????

But speaking of rejecting Relativity, why do you reject time dilation corrections to a universe increasing in acceleration?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The sad thing is most of the objectors dont know enough science to know most of it is conjecture or pseudoscience! Indeed.....the first time "big bang" was raised - the astronomic community had an apoplectic fit! But some of us had read about it in a book written a few thousand years ago, so we already knew. The astronomic community came on board in the end. Now they are arguing why not whether! They now accept it happened at least!

They simply lack critical thinking skills. They are taught to only be able to parrot what they have been told to think. So when you push them past the point of what they were told, by using actual science, they are at a loss....

Yes, but they want to ignore that accelerating universe that began accelerating faster than c (God stretched out the heavens) and has only continued to increase. Knowing 1: that mass increases (hence the average size of life has decreased - no more land dinosaur sized creatures) and 2: decay rates slow (hence radioactive decay rates were faster the further back one goes in time). But since they use the rate of today's slower clocks and decay rates to calculate backwards (uniformatarianism in a relative universe no less), they of course arrive at the wrong conclusions of age being they do not adjust exponentially for time dilation.......

Also see my argument above, they reject that very accuracy they claim to accept.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.

You appear to be be very confused. This does not describe what you follow.

But then you reject the very theory you claim to be so accurate by adding 95% Fairie Dust to it outside the solar system when it needed none of it to be accurate. So only in the solar system did it meet those tests of accuracy. Outside the solar system you had to fudge it with 95% ad-hoc theory that wasn't needed where it tested to an extreme accuracy.

No, you believe in Fairie Dust, that is your sin, not mine.

So I ask again, why do you continue to ignore that accuracy and instead make a mockery of it?????

More projection, try again.

But speaking of rejecting Relativity, why do you reject time dilation corrections to a universe increasing in acceleration?????

You now do not appear to understand expansion. That was an increase in distance between points, but it is not "acceleration" in the Newtonian sense. You do realize that don't you? Space expanded, that is not an "acceleration".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You appear to be be very confused. This does not describe what you follow.

It is exactly what I follow. I agree it describes non-ionized matter (planetary systems, .1%) quite accurately...

It just fails to describe the other 99.9% of the universe accurately, hence you need 95% ad-hoc theory.

So explain how this doesn't fit what I follow?????

No, you believe in Fairie Dust, that is your sin, not mine.

And yet you are the one proposing 95% never before seen or found in any experiment..... Imagine that.....

You now do not appear to understand expansion. That was an increase in distance between points, but it is not "acceleration" in the Newtonian sense. You do realize that don't you? Space expanded, that is not an "acceleration".

Please show me in any experiment an increase in distance between two objects in which the objects are not accelerating away from one another????

Just what I thought, pseudoscience.....

Now, a boat on a river carried along by the river does not have any acceleration with respect to the water, but it still possess both the kinetic energy and potential energy of the water....

Is this the point in the conversation where they invoke magic nothing as their explanation?????

If they are not an acceleration in the Newtonian sense, then why are they using Hubble's law to discover distance since that law requires red shift to be directly correlated to acceleration???

You see, you can't get around it. Either there is no acceleration and therefore Hubble's Law is invalid in determining distance, or there is acceleration in which case Hubble's Law can be used to determine distance.

So which is it????

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

So either we throw out distances, which destroys their entire timeline of the Big Bang, or we accept those recessional velocities and accept time dilation corrections are required.

Come on, let's hear their pseudoscience excuses for ignoring that recessional velocity while claiming to be able to determine distance due to that recessional velocity.......

But i notice you failed to use any science to back any of your claims, why is that????

 

[durangodawood]

Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

Fact: reality as presented literally in the Bible
Theory: attempted explanation that contradicts fact
Guess: 80's style of jeans that are coming back into fashion