Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?

Shawn Wilson wrote:

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Science progresses by filling in the blanks. Theories _always_ have holes. If they had no holes, then science would have stagnated when Born thought it would earlier in this century and scientists would have gotten bored and found other jobs. The goal is to find the right explanations, not explanations consistent with what _you_, Shawn Wilson, personally find elegant. That you think dark matter is a hack doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The fact is it's a much smaller hack than what you're proposing, which is nothing, since you have no theory to replace it with.

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? This is _exactly my point_. Back then you would have been demanding to know what those properties that produced neutrinos were, and demanded proof that they were consistent with our understanding of the origin of the Universe (which wasn't the Big Bang then).

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

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.

We had a puzzle with a piece missing whose outline we knew exactly.

Dark matter is this huge piece that will not fit in the puzzle.

They are precisely analagous.

Nothing is non relativistic. Relativity covers everything in the universe.

You just made an argument referring to the correspondence principle -- namely, that new theories must still obviously explain all the old observations or otherwise they're useless -- to Tue about his new theory. You even made the explicit reference that general relativity subsumes Newtonian gravitation in this way. Do you not realize the irony of what you're saying?

You insisted that Newtonian gravitation still worked. Yet here (and elsewhere) you're blaming relativity. It seems clearer and clearer to me that your bone to pick is not with dark matter, but rather relativity, and dark matter is simply the weapon you're using to try to introduce your alternative theories (of which you have none yourself, of course, but you want to open up a space for others to come in).

Do you lack the computational ability to realize that neither special nor general relativity have any effect on galactic structure, certainly regarding the behavior of galactic curve motion that we're detecting here? This is what dark matter theories are based on, not some obscure side point of relativity. The computations involved are purely Newtonian; they are simply not dense enough or fast enough to require any relativistic corrections.

So here again you're completely contradicting yourself. It's _Newtonian_ gravitation that's fine, but _Einsteinian_ that's a mess, right? Come on, you can show your true colors, everybody knows them now.

You really don't realize how little sense what you're saying makes, do you?


"Weakly interacting" does not get you a halo.

Yes it does. Look up neutrino halos.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@xxxxxxxxxxx && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
-- Frank Zappa
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Going through time travel (distributed, not relativistic, 5 dimensions?)
    ... I have arrived to a dark matter model through a theory I submitted ... at much slower speeds than what the theory of relativity would predict ... I see dark matter as a speed deterrent force of gravity, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • My unaccepted distributed theory to dark matter and time travel detachment
    ... relativity. ... Dark matter is a gravity that is an attachment ... As power rises in spiral galaxies, dark matter attaches itself to the ... neutralizer force in the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: The Matter of "Dark Matter
    ... > The Matter of "Dark Matter ... Experimental constraints on General Relativity ... Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian ... the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Matter of "Dark Matter
    ... > The Matter of "Dark Matter ... Experimental constraints on General Relativity ... Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian ... the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading