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.
Yes --- remember: all I'm doing is showing a DSP from a Biblical perspective.
No, thanks --- I'll leave it 'as is'.Well then mark the "supercontinent" down as close to a "FAIL". Because there was more than one likely.
Why not just call it "missing matter", or "unidentified matter"?
All objects that are smaller than say Jupiter have exactly those same two properties in a distant galaxy.
Well, I "sort of' see your point. I don't even actually complain much about MACHO forms of DM "explanation" for this "missing mass", or neutrino propositions related to DM. It's when they slap ad hoc properties to SUSY particles, point to the sky and claim that it *must be* non baryonic matter of some exotic nature that I tend to complain.
You've got to be kidding me?
You can ascertain the weight of another galaxy?
Well --- color me impressed!Yes. There's a technique called the ORBITAL METHOD in which the mass of the galaxy is measured by measuring the velocity of the rotation of the galaxy.
Even if I did believe there were more than one (which I don't)
Well --- color me impressed!
Now how do they weigh all that "visible matter" in order to compare it to the total weight, so as to ascertain the weight of all that stuff they probably overlooked or couldn't find, but call 'dark matter'?
Sarcasm aside --- why can't what they call 'dark matter' simply be the weight of planets or dwarf planets --- or even the combined weight of meteoroids?
'Dark matter' sounds like a catch-all phrase to me.
C'mon now --- do I have to stamp 'plebeian' across my forehead?So I assume you have some significant questions about the correlation of orogens or other features across numerous disparate cratons? Hmmm?
Wrong dispensation --- we don't run on physical evidence.Oh, and by-the-by, if you can find evidence in the rock record of HUMANS existing on Pangaea (the most recent supercontinent) prior to it's break up, regardless of how old you think any of these things are...
Go figure....you can get a massive amount of fame, and may become one of the most well-known people on the planet. (That evidence as well as the notariety would certainly help your ministry!)
Right --- just find evidence in the 'before' rocks and I win.It should be pretty simple. We know which rocks were there before the breakup of Pangaea, and we know which were there after the breakup. Just find evidence of human life in the "before" rocks and you win!
(It's that simple)
Must admit I don't care.
Actually, it does: we know how heavy the galaxies are, and we know how heavy the visible matter is. Thus, any discrepancy is dark matter: quite literally, matter that remains obstinately dark.
Calling it mythical is just cheap tactic from someone who can't think of a real refutation.
Yes. There's a technique called the ORBITAL METHOD in which the mass of the galaxy is measured by measuring the velocity of the rotation of points (stars) in the galaxy.
M = v[sup]2[/sup]r/G
M = mass within the radius being measured
v = orbital velocity of the galaxy
r = radius of the point in the galaxy you are measuring
G = Gravitational Constant
LINK
I have to admit I'm always fascinated by how elegant some of these techniques are. It seems nearly impossible to even imagine the mass of a galaxy, let alone have a relatively simple way of measuring the mass!
(CAVEAT: Hopefully a real astronomer or physicist on here will clarify this point further. This isn't my area at all.)
You don't care they teach dogma rather than science in the classroom? Really?
Evidently you don't apply the same standard to science that you do toward theistic/atheistic debate.
What exactly is the difference between faith and science other than the fact we can empirically test scientific theories?
Now admittedly, DM is not nearly as "out there" as 'dark energy' and the mythical dead inflation deity. Inflation is literally a 'supernatural" construct because no other known vector or scalar field in nature will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume without experience a significant loss of density. Dark energy is purely an ad hoc creation of epic proportions.
Just wait for a few years and see what they dig up from the LHC. It is capable of handling Super Symmetric masses. We'll see how it turns out.Keep in mind that "missing mass/dark matter" is not equal to "it must all relate to some form of mass related to SUSY theory". MACHO forms of "dark matter" make no "extraordinary" claims. SUSY related forms of DM *DO* make extraordinary claims because no evidence of SUSY theory has ever been confirmed by anyone.
Well, you take a created planet, and then you have some water on it. Then you can have fun making rocks by water activities, or heating stuff up. All sorts of ways.You do not see why rocks would suddenly appear different? Even if the fundamental physical laws were different? Do you know how rocks form?
Not really, when they are dealt with in a way that exposes the core suppositions, and beliefs that form the foundation of the claims.You have addressed them, just not really "dealt" with them. There's a difference.
To get a same state reaction, they have to dunk the whole area, in their heads, miles under the earth. You see, they also imagine in their heads things like a certain oxygen content on the planet. And certain reactions needs certain things to happen. So, they simply dunk the area, and after it is cooked just right, (in their heads) it magically resurfaces! The whole thing is an invention to explain in a same state belief way, what we see. The fine structure constant is another thing sitting on a precarious perch, but that is another story.Wh...what? Dunk? What? It relates to the ratios of uranium isotopes related to neutron capture and the fine structure constant. I don't see how that relates to "dunking" the reactor.
Oh, I know that things were bashed about, and pushed up, and buried, abd such. That isn't the issue. The issue is doing it in imaginary time, and on cue, so that a same state reaction occurs.Oh, by the way, we have many other examples where geologic formations have been buried and re-exposed all over the earth. Unrelated topic. (Although, as usual, one I'm rather intimately familiar with which is probably more than you can say.) Nice try though.
Then you will be dealing only in belief based scenarios, resting solely on a fable, and assumption. The skills you speak of are all present state physics. Unless we had a present state at creation, that is meaningless, and blowing smoke. No matter how much you revere them.I'm afraid I will have to take the information from trained nuclear physicists over the "claims" of a man with minimal skills in algebra and almost no apparent scientific background whatsoever. Thanks for playing, though. (And when it comes to science, do always remember, you are just "playing".)
So? I wanted to mention that dark energy and matter is bogus. And I was addressing anyone that can read. No wonder some people want to keep it out of a discussion. It can't be defended.I was addressing Michael who seemed to limit the discussion to hypotheses and inferrentail conjectures like dark matter/dark energy and I wanted to take it back to brass-tacks as they say and get to the meat of it. To take it to things we know quite a bit about (sorry if the "know quite a bit about" part left you in the dust).
Third time I ask this.Also Dad, do explain what the "Different State Past" was like. I'm eager to hear.
I'm holding an apple now. If I let go of it, will it fall down?
Just wait for a few years and see what they dig up from the LHC. It is capable of handling Super Symmetric masses. We'll see how it turns out.
I do, but that's got nothing to do with my statement. What I don't care about are unevidenced hypotheses about what the majority of dark matter consists of. If you have evidence showing that unevidenced hypotheses about dark matter are being taught as dogma in school, please share.
Evidently you prefer making stuff up about people, instead of reading what they say and trying to understand what they are communicating.
I entered the debate to correct what I viewed as your misunderstanding concerning dark matter, and it seems that my mission is accomplished, evidenced by your lack of counter arguments. I'm sure you can find others interested in the other subjects you mention.
Peter
Every SUSY theory, every "dark energy" theory, and every "inflation" theory is "dogma". By "dogma" I mean it cannot be demonstrated in an empirical experiment, but rather it requires an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer".
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?