Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?


"Erik Max Francis" <max@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:V4mdnXL7c-degq_ZRVn-qQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Particle physicists do. They know damn well how particles work and react
now, and they have excellent theories to describe how they interacted in
the big bang and what is parameters would have been to give us the
universe we now see. You simply can't shovel in ten times as much
ennergy and have things woork out the way they have.

They apparently _don't_ know damn well how particles work and react now,
because they falsely predicted that neutrinos were massless when we've now
discovered that they aren't. We see problems in the Standard Model even
today, and we adjust to it. Suggesting that relativity is completely
without merit and needs to be junked but that particle physics is 100%
hunky dorky and above reprieve is simply ignorant.


Yawn. Insert your own luminiferous ether comment here.





Science advances by facing what we _don't_ know and trying to explain it.
Somehow that isn't sinking in, since you seem to think that relativity is
a hack but particle physics, oh no, that's inviolable.


We have performed experiments that have not gone the way relativity
predicts. That's how we knew Newton was wrong too.

Dark matter is a *theory*, you keep treating it like it's an observed fact.
There are other theories that explain the discrepancies every bit as well as
dark matter does.





The point I'm trying to make here, which is obviously not sinking in (and
unfortunately I don't expect it to -- but I'll make it for those others
who are still bothering to read this thread) is that you, with the exact
same arguments that you're making now, would have insisted that neutrinos
(postulated in 1931) did not exist when Fermi postulated them, and would
have demanded that he produce a bucket of them (obviously impossible for
the precise reason that no one can provide a bucket of dark matter), and
that our understanding of particle physics would have to be consistent
with it (which consisted only of protons and electrons - neutrons weren't
fully hypothesized until 1932), and would have insisted that it be
consistent with our theories of the origin of the Universe (Hubble
expansion was only discovered in 1929 and hadn't developed into a fully
formulated theory by then).


Yawn, and those SAME arguments were used to claim that the luminiferous
ether was a fact.

Dark matter is not as well established as the neutrino was, what it is is an
ad hoc correction to make relativity work.



You in 1931 would have said that neutrinos clearly didn't exist and were a
stupid idea and contrary to all our accepted and well-understood laws of
physics and were a patch to an antiquated set of theories that were about
to fall apart anyway. Perhaps you may have gotten some traction with that
final claim, since it would have been partially true, but it would have
had nothing to do with the neutrino, which was experimentally detected and
which even you now do not dispute exists.


Yawn, luminiferous ether...




You're asserting that somehow missing _energy_ is okay and a just reason
to postulate things we can't detect in any way right now, but missing
_mass_ isn't and anyone doing so is a cad. That doesn't really work.


If 83% of the mass in the universe is dark matter, as you claim, show me
some.

Oh, right... You can't because it's 'invisible'...

So are neutrinos. Try harder.



Science progresses by filling in the blanks. Theories _always_ have
holes.


Except apparently for general relativity, which you seem to think is
inviolate.



That's just nonsense. the problem was they WERE being created by physical
processes we could observe. That's why they were postulated in the first
place- energy was disappearing from these known processes in an unknown
way.

We no longer have missing energy from our processes for dark matter to be
made of.

Can you really not hear yourself? Oh, neutrinos really _did_ exist, but
we just didn't know anything about them?



We did know about them. We could see the holes they left behind.





This is _exactly my point_.
Back then you would have been demanding to know what those properties that
produced neutrinos were,



Yep, and Fermi could have answered me. He didn't know what they were, but
he knew where they showed up. Dark matter seems not to show up anywhere in
particle physics or anywhere in our solar system, but supposedly makes up
83% of the mass of the universe. Here's another theory to explain the
discrepancies in the observations- Einstein was wrong.



and demanded proof that they were consistent with our understanding of the
origin of the Universe (which wasn't the Big Bang then).


They were consistent with our understanding. In fact is was consistency
with our understandin that led us to them in the first place. We knew
particles existed and that things should be conserved but weren't, so we
postulated a particle with the properties that weren't being conserved.





Now you're making the same claim about dark matter. Don't you see the
irony? This is argumentation from ignorance, nothing more.


We can go round and round this. Your arguments apply just as well to the
luminiferous ether.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt that you are right. Until you do you don't have a truth, you have a
theory. It is not a special theory, and it sure as hell isn't the only one.

Your theory so far fails the simple plausibility test- if it composes 83% of
the mass of the universe, WHERE IS IT? I don't see six dark matter suns in
the sky, and local stars don't move as if there is six times as much mass as
we see. Apparently dark mater is not only dark, it's shy...

It's everywhere but we can't see it? they said that about the...

You guessed it-

Luminiferous ether.





This all doesn't mean that dark matter exists. It may well not, and it
may require a complete revamp of all of physics. But most physicists
don't think so. However, your arguments do not come anywhere near backing
up what you think they do.


Backing up what? I don't have to prove my position.

"Most physicists don't think so"? At one time most physicists belived in
the luminiferous ether. Popularity does not make for fact.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Ripples in cosmic neutrino background measured for the first time (Forwarded)
    ... Neutrinos are elementary particles with no charge and very little mass, ... impact on the growth of structures in the Universe. ... Oxford's Department of Physics and Dr Alessandro Melchiorri of La ... Cosmology is becoming a more and more powerful laboratory ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Electric force and charge
    ... to continue to produce gravity neutrinos have to continue to ... "Charge" should also be some kind of energy since ... carrying to the entire space of the universe by neutrinos. ... physics of mechanics offers a consistent common-sense making ...
    (sci.physics)
  • universal forces
    ... To be the only things taking up all the space of the universe even ... neutrinos must have the unique physical properties of all the universal ... motions, particle physics, etc. Public understanding, debates and ... Physics of mechanics has been repeatedly proven to be the only real ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: (mechanical) Gravity
    ... to bravely come back to physics of mechanics. ... The space in the universe is not empty. ... belief of scientists, neutrinos are very interactive. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: (mechanical) Gravity
    ... to bravely come back to physics of mechanics. ... The space in the universe is not empty. ... belief of scientists, neutrinos are very interactive. ...
    (sci.physics)