Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[grasping the after wind]

I would trust the person who, with 10 years of specialised education, and thirty years experience as a medic/surgeon, had every reason to know what he was talking about.

If a person has invested 40 years in an idea I can understand such a person might be resistant to accepting that they have been wrong about it all along. such a person might simply deny the possibility and insist they were right. It is not as if that particular scenario has not played out over and over again in the past. People can become so invested in an idea they will never accept it is incorrect no matter how much evidence is presented to them of its incorrectness.

 

[Radrook]

That was a statement of fact, not of certainty.
New facts can come in, necessitating a need for new statements of facts.

And even so, "planet" is a matter of labeling / categorising objects in space.

How is this related to my question about "what claims of certainty concerning dark matter models?"

(I didn't mention the italic part in my previous post, because I assumed it was rather obvious concerning the post I was responding to - apparantly that was a bit optimistic for me)

A fact is a certainty by definition because a fact is a description of reality.

I never said that scientist's are claiming certainties concerning the nature of Dark Matter. The only certainty they are claiming is that there is something causing gravitational anomalies. This thing they choose to call dark matter.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That was a statement of fact, not of certainty.
New facts can come in, necessitating a need for new statements of facts.

And even so, "planet" is a matter of labeling / categorising objects in space.

How is this related to my question about "what claims of certainty concerning dark matter models?"

(I didn't mention the italic part in my previous post, because I assumed it was rather obvious concerning the post I was responding to - apparantly that was a bit optimistic for me)

So are you saying that there are such things as alternative facts?

 

[lesliedellow]

If a person has invested 40 years in an idea I can understand such a person might be resistant to accepting that they have been wrong about it all along. such a person might simply deny the possibility and insist they were right.

The astrophysicists I hear talking about dark matter show no signs of being weded to the idea. One in particular said that she didn't like it, and she wished it would go away. That does not mean, however, that she is going to sign up to the first crackpot idea some amateurs offer her.

 

[lesliedellow]

So are you saying that there are such things as alternative facts?

That the Earth is flat is not an alternative fact to the Earth being a sphere.
2+2=5 is not an alternative fact to 2+2=4. There are, however, newly discovered facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A fact is a certainty by definition because a fact is a description of reality.

No, it's not. Not in science anyway.
In science, nothing is "certain". In science, we speak about degrees of certainty, never really achieving 100%.

A fact can turn out wrong or incomplete.
In essence, a fact is just a piece of data or an observation.
Data can be wrong. So can observations.

I never said that scientist's are claiming certainties concerning the nature of Dark Matter.

Then I wonder what you were talking about in that original post of yours that I quoted.
The conversation was about if dark matter models can be tested. Someone said that it's silly to expect novel and difficult ideas to be completely transparant overnight. To which you replied "So in the meantime it's best to keep claims of certainty restrained".

So, yes, the point of topic was most definatly models concerning dark matter, as was your comment about "claims of certainty".

The only certainty they are claiming is that there is something causing gravitational anomalies.

"certainty". Quotes might be appropriate. We're talking about science, after all. Everything is provisional.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a person has invested 40 years in an idea I can understand such a person might be resistant to accepting that they have been wrong about it all along. such a person might simply deny the possibility and insist they were right. It is not as if that particular scenario has not played out over and over again in the past.

Sure. But can you also come up with an example of a scientist who still clinged to already falsified models of his field of expertise, in spite of the rest of his peers moving on with the new and improved models of reality?

People can become so invested in an idea they will never accept it is incorrect no matter how much evidence is presented to them of its incorrectness.

Are you still talking about scientists? Because that sounds like a great description of YECs and other types of religious fundamentalists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So are you saying that there are such things as alternative facts?

No, not at all.

I'm saying that science, be it concerning data or models to explain the data, is always provisional. Meaning that it is open for revision as new data comes in. In fact, "being open to" is an understatement.

Scientific progress actually literally depends on the ability to revise currently held ideas and understanding. That's literally what scientific progress is all about: learning more and correcting false or incomplete ideas...

Considering what we knew and understood about the solar system back in the day, it was sensible to include Pluto in the category "planet". As new data came in, we saw a need for other categories, one of which was a better fit for Pluto as well.

Again, it's called learning.

And this is also precisely the reason why all kinds of alarm bells go off, whenever someone implies that something is claimed with "certainty" in science. Because that in itself, is an unscientific thing to do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If a person has invested 40 years in an idea I can understand such a person might be resistant to accepting that they have been wrong about it all along. such a person might simply deny the possibility and insist they were right. It is not as if that particular scenario has not played out over and over again in the past. People can become so invested in an idea they will never accept it is incorrect no matter how much evidence is presented to them of its incorrectness.

Exactly. 99% of the scientific community ridiculed Kristian Birkeland for over 40 years. In the end it took a probe launched into space to prove Birkeland was correct and everyone else was wrong. Even afterwards some still resisted. Then his main detractor adopts the theory as his own and starts adding Fairie Dust into it. I mean lets be honest. Had Sidney Chapman really understood the theory to begin with, he wouldnt have spent 40 years ridiculing it. Then when he adopts it as his own start interjecting his ideas into it which were wrong from the start.

 

[Radrook]

So are you saying that there are such things as alternative facts?

Perhaps a definition of "fact" is in order:



fact

(făkt)

n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2.

a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.Idiom:

in (point of) fact

In reality or in truth; actually.

fact

No, it's not. Not in science anyway.
In science, nothing is "certain". In science, we speak about degrees of certainty, never really achieving 100%.

A fact can turn out wrong or incomplete.
In essence, a fact is just a piece of data or an observation.
Data can be wrong. So can observations.



Then I wonder what you were talking about in that original post of yours that I quoted.
The conversation was about if dark matter models can be tested. Someone said that it's silly to expect novel and difficult ideas to be completely transparant overnight. To which you replied "So in the meantime it's best to keep claims of certainty restrained".

So, yes, the point of topic was most definatly models concerning dark matter, as was your comment about "claims of certainty".



"certainty". Quotes might be appropriate. We're talking about science, after all. Everything is provisional.

True, my comment concerning restraint was about claims of certainty in reference to dark matter when such a certainty claims are unwarranted. That's what Mike was referring to-unwarranted claims of certainties.

BTW

If indeed there can never be certainty via science as you claim, then you must be uncertain that gravity exists. Of course that uncertainty would most certainly never come to mind if they placed you on a ledge 100 stories up on a skyscraper.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A fact is a certainty by definition because a fact is a description of reality.

I never said that scientist's are claiming certainties concerning the nature of Dark Matter. The only certainty they are claiming is that there is something causing gravitational anomalies. This thing they choose to call dark matter.

No, no, no, that's not quite a true statement. If it was a certainty something was causing gravitational anomolies, then they wouldnt be thinking about modifying newtons laws because none of the gravitational laws work.

What would be correct to say is that a force is at work which the scientific community does not understand. The simple fact is that 99.9% of the universe is plasma. Plasma is dominated by the electromagnetic forces - as has been demonstrated in every single laboratory on this planet - and in space laboratories.

So why are you insisting we apply the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter - and then when the answers you get dont match the data - insist in some invisible, undetectable Fairie Dust? They are simply trying to sledgehammer gravitational theory to fit a state of matter it does not apply to. They are using the wrong physics. Einstein once believed the universe was 99% non ionized matter and 1% plasma. This was during his formulation of his theory. Now we understand it to be 99.9% plasma and .1% non-ionized matter.

Gravitational theory only applies to non-ionized matter, .1% of the universe, planetary systems. This is why once you go beyond the edge of the solar system what was just tested to a 98% accuracy suddenly needs correction after correction after correction. It is simply not the dominating force at work. But cosmologists dont understand that you cant treat ionized matter the same as non-ionized matter. So they continue to try to sledgehammer the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter.

There is indeed a force at work - that force is electromagnetic interactions in plasma - that 99.9% they do not understand.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If indeed there can never be certainty via science as you claim, then you must be uncertain that gravity exists. Of course that uncertainty would most certainly never come to mind if they placed you on a ledge 100 stories up on a skyscraper.

I am as certain gravity exists, as I am certain electromagnetic forces exist and that gravity does not apply to plasma behavior, 99.9% of the universe, as has been demonstrated in every single laboratory that exists and is why only particle physics and electromagnetic theory is used to describe plasma behavior. The correct physics must be applied to the correct states of matter. Until then they are going to continue to need all that Fairie Dust to explain why their calculations dont match reality. There is no magical Dark matter - just the application of the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True, my comment concerning restraint was about claims of certainty in reference to dark matter when such a certainty claims are unwarranted. That's what Mike was referring to-unwarranted claims of certainties.

Okay.

Here's the thing though, as I explained: that goes for ALL of science.
Any claim made with "certainty", is unscientific by definition.
Science can tell you what is likely true. Some things are so incredibly likely that we just call it true, without additional qualifications for ease of communication.

But even those things are never considered "absolutely" true or "certain".
There's always that 0,000...001% chance of being wrong - no matter how unlikely it may seem that it is wrong.

It's just how science works. Everything is questionable.

If indeed there can never be certainty via science as you claim, then you must be uncertain that gravity exists. Of course that uncertainty would most certainly never come to mind if they placed you on a ledge 100 stories up on a skyscraper.

If you drop a ball in a vacuum 999.999 times and every time it falls to the earth at exactly 9.81 meters per second per second, it would obviously be crazy to suggest that it will be different the millionth time.

But it could. How incredibly unlikely it may seem.
Taking into account everything we know about mass, gravity, etc... there is absolutely no reason to assume it will be different. But there you have it: taking everything we know into account. What about the things we do NOT know? We don't know anything about the things we don't know. And in those things we don't know, there might be stuff that shows our current understandings to be wrong or incomplete.

If you express 100% certainty, then you are effectively saying that among the set of things you do NOT know, there is nothing that might contradict things you think to know now.

I shouldn't have to explain why such would be intellectual dishonesty...

Strictly speaking, in scientific context, we are merely talking about a degree of certainty. A degree that can only approach 100%, but never become 100%.


Furthermore, your "example" of standing on a skyscraper also seems to imply that "either you are certain, or you are equally justified to believe one or the other", which is off course ridiculous.

The alternative to being absolutely certain, is not a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you drop a ball in a vacuum 999.999 times and every time it falls to the earth at exactly 9.81 meters per second per second, it would obviously be crazy to suggest that it will be different the millionth time.

But it could. How incredibly unlikely it may seem.

Now apply charge to that ball so it is no longer non-ionized matter, change the voltage in that area of space due to everything around it being ionized and.......

This is what people forget, that 99.9% of the universe is plasma and it is not behaving gravitationally, but electromagnetically. It's not unlikely at all, if everything around that ball is also highly charged - as exists in 99.9% of the universe. It is out local system that is different from the rest of the universe.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

They are trying to get you to think of Apples being the same as Oranges. Single ionized particles, 99.9% of the universe do not behave the same as bonded non-ionized particles, .1% of the universe, planetary systems. Not even in this system.

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

"We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

But they want you to keep sledgehammering those existing theories for large amounts of non-ionized matter to those single ionized particles. Even if it is those single particles levitating off the surface of the moon, ignoring the gravitational laws and obeying the electromagnetic laws.

 

[lesliedellow]

Now apply charge to that ball so it is no longer non-ionized matter, change the voltage in that area of space due to everything around it being ionized and.......

This is what people forget, that 99.9% of the universe is plasma and it is not behaving gravitationally, but electromagnetically.

It is behaving as if there were two forces acting upon it, and in accord with Newton's second law of motion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now apply charge to that ball so it is no longer non-ionized matter, change the voltage in that area of space due to everything around it being ionized and.......

This is what people forget, that 99.9% of the universe is plasma and it is not behaving gravitationally, but electromagnetically. It's not unlikely at all, if everything around that ball is also highly charged - as exists in 99.9% of the universe. It is out local system that is different from the rest of the universe.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

They are trying to get you to think of Apples being the same as Oranges. Single ionized particles, 99.9% of the universe do not behave the same as bound non-ionized particles, .1% of the universe, planetary systems.

Do you also have something to say that is actually relevant to the point I was making?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you also have something to say that is actually relevant to the point I was making?

It was relevant, you just refuse to accept that electromagnetic forces dominate in plasma, and so there is no need to consider Fairie Dust Dark matter when one applies the correct physics.

Now you were just shown moon dust levitating off of the moons surface due to electromagnetic interactions. Just told that single particles do not behave the same as clumps of particles, yet still want to pretend that a universe 99.9% single particles must behave like those clumps of particles.

So for some strange reason you are rejecting everything you were just told about single particles and asking us to treat them like clumps of particles.

And the rub is that I was agreeing with you that there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science and just showed it to you. Go catch that attitude with someone else. Getting to where people cant even have a scientific discussion here anymore cause of people with their childish attitudes and comments. Grow up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was relevant

My point was about how in science, there are no expressions of absolute certainties as new data/discoveries/knowledge may always and at any time force us to re-evaluate currently held ideas.

Nothing in your post addressed that point.

And the rub is that I was agreeing with you that there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science

Then a simple "i agree" or even just rating my post by clicking the "agree" icon would have been enough.

Your whole rant about plasma and how the mainstream in the scientific community is completely wrong and you correct, is irrelevant.

If you have a problem with the science, take it up with scientists. If you think you know better, then get to work and show them all wrong. This is not the platform to do so.

Getting to where people cant even have a scientific discussion here anymore cause of people with their childish attitudes and comments. Grow up.

Sorry, I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to know better then scientists concerning their own field of expertise.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is behaving as if there were two forces acting upon it, and in accord with Newton's second law of motion.

And that second force - electromagnetic interactions - dominated the interactions when that oil drop became charged. it slowed, stopped and began to rise despite gravity pulling it down. Actually by gravitational theory it shouldnt have stopped as it became more charged - since it is charge that causes mass. So it is directly defying Newtons Laws since it now has more charge which means it has more mass and hence should never slow and rise. Since it was initially accelerated downward, newtons laws demand it continue in the same direction. Know you seem to understand the truth, that a second force was applied - electromagnetic - which overpowered the gravitational force. So why do you not apply what you now is true to the other 99.9% of the universe?

And this is what they are not taking into consideration as 99.9% of the universe is plasma. That the electromagnetic forces are dominating the interactions and causing those flat rotation curves. There is no need for strange exotic matter - just the application of the correct physics.

 

[lesliedellow]

And that second force - electromagnetic interactions - dominated the interactions when that oil drop became charged. it slowed, stopped and began to rise despite gravity pulling it down. Actually by gravitational theory it shouldnt have stopped as it became more charged - since it is charge that causes mass. So it is directly defying Newtons Laws since it now has more charge which means it has more mass and hence should never slow and rise. Since it was initially accelerated downward, newtons laws demand it continue in the same direction. Know you seem to understand the truth, that a second force was applied - electromagnetic - which overpowered the gravitational force. So why do you not apply what you now is true to the other 99.9% of the universe?

And this is what they are not taking into consideration as 99.9% of the universe is plasma. That the electromagnetic forces are dominating the interactions and causing those flat rotation curves. There is no need for strange exotic matter - just the application of the correct physics.

a.) Plasma is electrically neutral, and it remains neutral even if he electrons have enough kinetic energy to free themselves from the nucleus of the atoms.

b.) I take it that nonsense about charge causing mass is a reference to E=MC^2. So for the 10,000 millionth time, charge is not energy. Charge is measured in coulombs, and energy is measured in joules.

I suspect that I could find endless other guffaws in that post, if I could be bothered to look.