Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?

: "Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@xxxxxxx>
: That doesn't make any ense whatsoever. We *did* know there was missing
: energy with neutrinos.

No, we knew tracks in cloud chambers weren't lining up as expected.
This led us to *calculate* that there was missing energy.

Just like we know tracks in galaxies aren't lining up as expected,
and this has led us to calculate there is missing mass.

: So far we don't know of the problem is with F, M, or A. I have seen
: theories presented for all of them.

And the most successful ones, and those that look most promising
so far, are the ones with more M.

: Yes, I have. Particle physics works better than relativity, and there
: is no room in particle physics for dark matter.

Except of course that there are.

: Not only is there no room for it, but there's no explanation for the
: way it would have to behave to explain what we observe.

Except of course that there is.

: There was room in existing theory for neutrinos, there is no room for
: dark matter.

Plenty of room.

: What does breaking particle physics get us?

Nothing. But then, of course you don't have to break particle physics.

: Because it doesn't fit with other theories.

Sure it does. Just about as well as neutrinos did back in the day.
Sure NOW we think neutrinos fit the model. But they didn't then.

: We have damn good reason to belive in the rest of physics, we have no
: reason whatsoever to belive dark matter exists.

We have reasons just as strong as other cases that eventually panned out.

: Because we know how much energy the universe was created with

How do you know that?

: And your evidence to discard particle physics is what?

None at all. But then, I don't need to discard particle physics.
It just needs to be extended, by any of a number of proposals that
which are supersets of existing models. Gravity proposals tend
to be just curve fitting without rationale or connection to any
other physics. They are hard to falisfy, only because they have no
particular consequences.

: Survey says- because it doesn't really exist.

No, actual surveys say dark matter exists. Saying it doesn't is sort
of like, "things you'd take to a picnic: rubber cement". Sure, you can
come up with scenarios, and it's hard to prove it *wouldn't* be taken,
but it's not going to show up in the top ten. Interview a hundred
leading astrophysicists or particle physicists, even eager young
folk to avoid Clarke's first law, and you're not going to find
many to agree with you.

Which doesn't prove anything logically... but then again, neither have you.


Wayne Throop throopw@xxxxxxxxx http://sheol.org/throopw
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LHC: absurd hype
    ... This accelerator is unlikely to do anything, ... own mother's cancer, by all accounts with good results. ... maybe using energy comparable to the ... having a PhD in particle physics ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... energy and momentum conservation. ... Particle physics works better than relativity, ... room in particle physics for dark matter. ... Because we know how much energy the universe was created with and we know ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: The Flaw in High Energy Physics
    ... > The Flaw in High Energy Physics ... > contain kinetic energy of hundreds of GEV. ... > observable mass equivalent energies of hundreds of GEV. ... and are the mainstay of modern particle physics. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Physics without energy
    ... >> about particle physics, now that we have particle physics, and now ... I'm calling photons matter. ... > Mass is not conserved. ... Energy is. ...
    (sci.physics)