Re: Dark matter

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:25:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On 24 Sep, 00:22, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:18:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:





On 23 Sep, 02:51, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:48:11 -0700, the following appeared

<snip>

So, if that is true, we would expect *not* to find a lot of dark matter
'between galaxies', wouldn't we?

Hmmm!

Let me think! DM aggregates galaxies! Fair enough!
Are you saying every "clump" of DM has aggregated a galaxy?

Prob not! So where are the isolated DM "Clumps" in deep space?

"Prob(ably) not" is not evidence, or even an educated guess.

So why would you expect "isolated DM 'Clumps' in deep
space", other than you think they should be there for some
unknown reason?

I know they aren't there!

No, you don't. Neither does anyone else, since the evidence
for the existence of dark matter is solely its effect on
normal matter. You do understand this, right?

I understand, that you dont understand GR!

Actually I do, probably as well as most laymen. Not the
math; that's a bit beyond me, but the general ideas.

DM interacts gravitationally, you could infer DM's existence
in deep space by G-lensing!

Do you even think about what you post? How much sky would
have to be examined in detail, looking *specifically* for
lensing, before it would be safe to conclude that there are
"prob not" any DM clumps? How much sky do you imagine *has*
been so examined? Short answers: "A helluva lot" and "Damn
little", respectively. *No one* knows whether DM "clumps"
exist in intergalactic space and AFAIK there's no specific
theory regarding why they do or don't.

"You do understand this, right"?

I understand you think everything which can be done has been
done. Here's a clue: it hasn't.

Why do you insist there are isolated clumps of "normal matter"?
"For some unknown reason"?

Well, the fact that they've been detected has quite a bit to
do with it.

Oh, right! So I could use the same logic and conclude
that because isolated DM "hasn't" been 'detected' it can't exist!

Uh, no, you couldn't; this would be an elementary logical
flaw.

Ergo, (according to you) "normal matter can exist "witout" DM,
but DM cannot exist without normal matter"?

No, nor did I say this, or anything resembling this. Perhaps
you should take remedial English.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
And you know this; how?

Your misreading and consequent fallacious "logic" does not
require an explanation from me. Learn to read.

You can't have this both ways!

You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about,
as is obvious by your attempt to use the argument "There are
no isolated clumps of dark matter in deep space", which is
something neither you nor anyone else knows, to try to
demonstrate...well...something obscure. I'm not sure even
you know what you're trying to prove with this bogus claim.
And there is no "have it both ways". Try to grasp this: We
directly detect *only* normal matter. We infer the existence
of dark matter because of the unexpected behavior of normal
matter; we can't directly detect it. If there's no normal
matter around (as is the case in most of intergalactic
space) there's no way to tell whether "clumps of DM" exist
there or not, since there's no normal matter, whose behavior
can show the presence of dark matter, to be affected, and we
*can't directly detect dark matter*.


To use your own words;
"You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about"!

Really? Please discuss what, if anything, I stated that was
incorrect.

Isolated DM could quite easily be detected *without* infering its
effects
on normal matter!

Your definition of "quite easily" seems a bit far-fetched.
How much time do you incorrectly imagine has been devoted to
deep-sky examination looking for lensing?

Unfortunately for you, however; NO isolated DM has been detected!

It's not unfortunate for me, since I understand the
constraints on telescope time and on experts' time and
effort. It's unfortunate for you that you don't seem to
understand the difference between "we haven't" and "we
can't", or between "easily" and "at great expense in money,
time and effort".
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dark matter
    ... how galaxies form is that they form by dark matter clumps or 'halos' ... attracting baryonic matter. ... So, if that is true, we would expect *not* to find a lot of dark matter ... So where are the isolated DM "Clumps" in deep space? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-location of normal matter and dark matter
    ... > The non-neutrino component of dark matter, ... > gravitationally with normal matter, should occupy the same locations as ... radiation (requiring photons, hence the name Dark), nor via conduction ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Co-location of normal matter and dark matter
    ... > The non-neutrino component of dark matter, ... > gravitationally with normal matter, should occupy the same locations as ... radiation (requiring photons, hence the name Dark), nor via conduction ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Confused About Dark Matter
    ... I have been reading the popular scientific articles about Dark Matter, ... Dark Matter that does not interact with normal matter, ... let it orbit faster in the galactic halo. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Re: Dark matter
    ... for the existence of dark matter is solely its effect on ... Ergo, "normal matter can exist "witout" DM, ... no isolated clumps of dark matter in deep space", ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading