Dark Matter...WTH?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, thanks for your cooperation. It does let you off the hook from having to respond to Dr R, but I'd rather save the thread. I hope you understand Dr Rocket.Wayne <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think DrRocket and I are off to a better start in the new thread anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, thanks for your cooperation. It does let you off the hook from having to respond to Dr R, but I'd rather save the thread. I hope you understand Dr Rocket.Wayne <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think DrRocket and I are off to a better start in the new thread anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, thanks for your cooperation. It does let you off the hook from having to respond to Dr R, but I'd rather save the thread. I hope you understand Dr Rocket.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I do understand.&nbsp; This is probably a good idea in this case.</p><p>But I think also it would be wise to avoid setting a precedent and a de facto procedure whereby those who post pseudo science can avoid having to defend their posts.&nbsp; -Therefore I think it might be beneficial if you were to reiterate your assertion that those who post pseudo science, outside of&nbsp;The Unexplained,&nbsp;and are challenged to rigorously defend those posts must do so and cannot count on being able to use some stragegem to avoid that responsibility.&nbsp; Otherwise there is the risk of gorilla warfare -- hit and run pseudo science posts.</p><p>One tactic, used elsewhere is to post a hard and fast rule that "against the mainstream" posts must be made in what is here called The Unexplained and also make it clear that EU ideas are "against the mainstream".&nbsp; Sanctions (elsewhere) can be pretty severe.&nbsp; You might consider your own version of such a policy.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, thanks for your cooperation. It does let you off the hook from having to respond to Dr R, but I'd rather save the thread. I hope you understand Dr Rocket.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I do understand.&nbsp; This is probably a good idea in this case.</p><p>But I think also it would be wise to avoid setting a precedent and a de facto procedure whereby those who post pseudo science can avoid having to defend their posts.&nbsp; -Therefore I think it might be beneficial if you were to reiterate your assertion that those who post pseudo science, outside of&nbsp;The Unexplained,&nbsp;and are challenged to rigorously defend those posts must do so and cannot count on being able to use some stragegem to avoid that responsibility.&nbsp; Otherwise there is the risk of gorilla warfare -- hit and run pseudo science posts.</p><p>One tactic, used elsewhere is to post a hard and fast rule that "against the mainstream" posts must be made in what is here called The Unexplained and also make it clear that EU ideas are "against the mainstream".&nbsp; Sanctions (elsewhere) can be pretty severe.&nbsp; You might consider your own version of such a policy.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, thanks for your cooperation. It does let you off the hook from having to respond to Dr R, but I'd rather save the thread. I hope you understand Dr Rocket.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I do understand.&nbsp; This is probably a good idea in this case.</p><p>But I think also it would be wise to avoid setting a precedent and a de facto procedure whereby those who post pseudo science can avoid having to defend their posts.&nbsp; -Therefore I think it might be beneficial if you were to reiterate your assertion that those who post pseudo science, outside of&nbsp;The Unexplained,&nbsp;and are challenged to rigorously defend those posts must do so and cannot count on being able to use some stragegem to avoid that responsibility.&nbsp; Otherwise there is the risk of gorilla warfare -- hit and run pseudo science posts.</p><p>One tactic, used elsewhere is to post a hard and fast rule that "against the mainstream" posts must be made in what is here called The Unexplained and also make it clear that EU ideas are "against the mainstream".&nbsp; Sanctions (elsewhere) can be pretty severe.&nbsp; You might consider your own version of such a policy.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, thanks for your cooperation. It does let you off the hook from having to respond to Dr R, but I'd rather save the thread. I hope you understand Dr Rocket.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I do understand.&nbsp; This is probably a good idea in this case.</p><p>But I think also it would be wise to avoid setting a precedent and a de facto procedure whereby those who post pseudo science can avoid having to defend their posts.&nbsp; -Therefore I think it might be beneficial if you were to reiterate your assertion that those who post pseudo science, outside of&nbsp;The Unexplained,&nbsp;and are challenged to rigorously defend those posts must do so and cannot count on being able to use some stragegem to avoid that responsibility.&nbsp; Otherwise there is the risk of gorilla warfare -- hit and run pseudo science posts.</p><p>One tactic, used elsewhere is to post a hard and fast rule that "against the mainstream" posts must be made in what is here called The Unexplained and also make it clear that EU ideas are "against the mainstream".&nbsp; Sanctions (elsewhere) can be pretty severe.&nbsp; You might consider your own version of such a policy.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat On</font></p><p>A matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. </p><p>That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.</p><p>Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.</p><p>Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. </p><p>We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...</p><p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat Off </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat On</font></p><p>A matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. </p><p>That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.</p><p>Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.</p><p>Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. </p><p>We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...</p><p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat Off </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat On</font></p><p>A matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. </p><p>That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.</p><p>Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.</p><p>Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. </p><p>We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...</p><p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat Off </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat On</font></p><p>A matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. </p><p>That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.</p><p>Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.</p><p>Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. </p><p>We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...</p><p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat Off </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>/Mod Hat OnA matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.../Mod Hat Off <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I find myself somewhat "stuck in the middle' of this specific debate (dark matter) in the sense that I personally favor a "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanation over something like MOND theory to explain current observations of galaxy lensing data and galactic rotatation patterns.&nbsp;</p><p> On the other hand, when and where does the "nominal respect" for "dark matter" theory end?&nbsp; It's one thing to claim we can't 'indentify" the mass that is out there in distant galaxies. It's another thing entirely when the mainstream of astronomy posits as *non standard* particle physics theory, and "non mainstream" particle physics theory, as the basis of all this "unidentified mass".&nbsp; I have now read articles and papers on a regular basis that talk about the "half life" of these non demonstrated SUSY particles, the gamma rays they emit, and most recently I've seen an article attributing hundred billion volt electrons to this "non baryonic" form of matter that seems to magically pass through other forms of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sooner or later, even a basic proponent of 'dark matter" theory like myself becomes disenchanted with the "mainstream" explanations and specfically the lack of emprical support for all these supposed "properties" of a particle that is based upon a non standard (non mainstream) particle physics theory.&nbsp; When is a certain amount of health skepticism reasonable?</p><p>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>/Mod Hat OnA matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.../Mod Hat Off <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I find myself somewhat "stuck in the middle' of this specific debate (dark matter) in the sense that I personally favor a "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanation over something like MOND theory to explain current observations of galaxy lensing data and galactic rotatation patterns.&nbsp;</p><p> On the other hand, when and where does the "nominal respect" for "dark matter" theory end?&nbsp; It's one thing to claim we can't 'indentify" the mass that is out there in distant galaxies. It's another thing entirely when the mainstream of astronomy posits as *non standard* particle physics theory, and "non mainstream" particle physics theory, as the basis of all this "unidentified mass".&nbsp; I have now read articles and papers on a regular basis that talk about the "half life" of these non demonstrated SUSY particles, the gamma rays they emit, and most recently I've seen an article attributing hundred billion volt electrons to this "non baryonic" form of matter that seems to magically pass through other forms of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sooner or later, even a basic proponent of 'dark matter" theory like myself becomes disenchanted with the "mainstream" explanations and specfically the lack of emprical support for all these supposed "properties" of a particle that is based upon a non standard (non mainstream) particle physics theory.&nbsp; When is a certain amount of health skepticism reasonable?</p><p>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>/Mod Hat OnA matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.../Mod Hat Off <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I find myself somewhat "stuck in the middle' of this specific debate (dark matter) in the sense that I personally favor a "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanation over something like MOND theory to explain current observations of galaxy lensing data and galactic rotatation patterns.&nbsp;</p><p> On the other hand, when and where does the "nominal respect" for "dark matter" theory end?&nbsp; It's one thing to claim we can't 'indentify" the mass that is out there in distant galaxies. It's another thing entirely when the mainstream of astronomy posits as *non standard* particle physics theory, and "non mainstream" particle physics theory, as the basis of all this "unidentified mass".&nbsp; I have now read articles and papers on a regular basis that talk about the "half life" of these non demonstrated SUSY particles, the gamma rays they emit, and most recently I've seen an article attributing hundred billion volt electrons to this "non baryonic" form of matter that seems to magically pass through other forms of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sooner or later, even a basic proponent of 'dark matter" theory like myself becomes disenchanted with the "mainstream" explanations and specfically the lack of emprical support for all these supposed "properties" of a particle that is based upon a non standard (non mainstream) particle physics theory.&nbsp; When is a certain amount of health skepticism reasonable?</p><p>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>/Mod Hat OnA matter of policy, so as that this is not misunderstood:&nbsp; under our rules, in any given scientific debate where there is an accepted scientific explanation - as unhappy as it may make it's nay-sayers - and an unconventional and generally speculative explanation, it is incumbent upon the person posting the unconventional explanation to explain and prove their assertations; not that of the person posting the mainstream explanation. That, by the way, is one aspect of the Scientific Method.Inasmuch as Dark Matter is, as Meteorwayne says, the accepted placeholder for further investigation, that is the mainstream explanation.&nbsp; Another alternate explanation would be the one that must explain itself if challenged.&nbsp; Remember people much more highly skilled in this subject have determined Dark Matter is their accepted mechanism, and we must at least nominally respect the fact.Hope that helps, in some small way, to clarify matters. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.../Mod Hat Off <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I find myself somewhat "stuck in the middle' of this specific debate (dark matter) in the sense that I personally favor a "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanation over something like MOND theory to explain current observations of galaxy lensing data and galactic rotatation patterns.&nbsp;</p><p> On the other hand, when and where does the "nominal respect" for "dark matter" theory end?&nbsp; It's one thing to claim we can't 'indentify" the mass that is out there in distant galaxies. It's another thing entirely when the mainstream of astronomy posits as *non standard* particle physics theory, and "non mainstream" particle physics theory, as the basis of all this "unidentified mass".&nbsp; I have now read articles and papers on a regular basis that talk about the "half life" of these non demonstrated SUSY particles, the gamma rays they emit, and most recently I've seen an article attributing hundred billion volt electrons to this "non baryonic" form of matter that seems to magically pass through other forms of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sooner or later, even a basic proponent of 'dark matter" theory like myself becomes disenchanted with the "mainstream" explanations and specfically the lack of emprical support for all these supposed "properties" of a particle that is based upon a non standard (non mainstream) particle physics theory.&nbsp; When is a certain amount of health skepticism reasonable?</p><p>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:</p><p><em>The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. </em></p><p>Now <em>that</em> is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away, MacDuff.</p><p>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.&nbsp; On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.</p><p>I trust that clarifies things for you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:</p><p><em>The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. </em></p><p>Now <em>that</em> is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away, MacDuff.</p><p>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.&nbsp; On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.</p><p>I trust that clarifies things for you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:</p><p><em>The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. </em></p><p>Now <em>that</em> is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away, MacDuff.</p><p>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.&nbsp; On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.</p><p>I trust that clarifies things for you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:</p><p><em>The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. </em></p><p>Now <em>that</em> is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away, MacDuff.</p><p>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.&nbsp; On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.</p><p>I trust that clarifies things for you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. Now that is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away ,MacDuff</DIV></p><p>Ok. It seems rather "odd" to a skeptic that WIMPS and SUSY oriented (non standard) particle physics theories have now become "mainstream" astronomy theories.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas MACHO oriented forms of DM theories require no new 'forms' of matter to exist, non baryonic forms of "dark matter" theories which are based on SUSY particles are necessarily a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory.&nbsp; Moreover, the "properties" that are now being 'assigned' to SUSY particles have become numerous and unfalsifiable.&nbsp; That recent NASA article Wayne posted claimed that 300-800 billion volt electrons were caused by "dark matter". These are the types of unflasifiable and unverifiable statements that have become more than a bit "questionable".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.</DIV></p><p>In order to "challenge" a theory, one has to have some idea of what it means to "explain" a theory, and what it takes to "prove" or "disprove" a specific theory. &nbsp; That ws the point of my other thread, specifically to get a clear understanding of what is expected of both the skeptic and the proponent of any given theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.I trust that clarifies things for you. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>For the life of me I cannot understand what "proof" has been provided that shows that SUSY particles exist.&nbsp; It therefore seems unreasonable to give SUSY related theories a "free pass" only because they are now considered "mainstream" and appear in numberous astronomy oriented papers.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As it relates to this specific topic, the example here I would cite relates to the last article by NASA </p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>An alternative explanation is that the surplus of high energy electrons might result from the annihilation of very exotic particles put forward to explain dark matter.</strong> In recent decades, scientists have learned that the kind of material making up the universe around us only accounts for about five percent of its mass composition. Close to 70 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy (so called because its nature is unknown). <strong>The remaining 25 percent of the mass acts gravitationally just like regular matter, but does little else, so it is normally not visible.</strong></DIV> </p><p>Emphasis mine.&nbsp; From a skeptics point of view, the assertion highlighted is purely an "ad hoc" assertion.&nbsp; There has never been any sort of link established that demonstrates that:</p><p>A) SUSY particles exist.</p><p>B) SUSY particles remain stable enough (longevity) to be considered "dark matter".</p><p>C) SUSY particles emit high energy electrons.</p><p>When one does a bit of reading, we find paper related to the half life of "dark matter", gamma rays attributed to "dark matter", high energy electrons being attributed to "dark matter", claims that "dark matter" passes right through other baryonic forms of matter, etc.&nbsp; These are all "ad hoc" "properties" that have been assigned to a particle that nobody has ever shown to even exist. However, that never stopped anyone from claiming that it is a more abundant form of matter than all the normal "baryonic" matter we know of. </p><p>Why are we to turn a blind eye to any theory only because it's become "well accept".&nbsp; Dogma and science are clearly different in one very real respect. Science is reproducable in emprical experimentation, whereas dogma is something I must simply accept on faith.&nbsp; If the skeptic is to be satisfied with an "explanation", shouldn't it require an emprical test of concept?&nbsp; Where is the empirical scientific evidence that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. Now that is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away ,MacDuff</DIV></p><p>Ok. It seems rather "odd" to a skeptic that WIMPS and SUSY oriented (non standard) particle physics theories have now become "mainstream" astronomy theories.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas MACHO oriented forms of DM theories require no new 'forms' of matter to exist, non baryonic forms of "dark matter" theories which are based on SUSY particles are necessarily a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory.&nbsp; Moreover, the "properties" that are now being 'assigned' to SUSY particles have become numerous and unfalsifiable.&nbsp; That recent NASA article Wayne posted claimed that 300-800 billion volt electrons were caused by "dark matter". These are the types of unflasifiable and unverifiable statements that have become more than a bit "questionable".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.</DIV></p><p>In order to "challenge" a theory, one has to have some idea of what it means to "explain" a theory, and what it takes to "prove" or "disprove" a specific theory. &nbsp; That ws the point of my other thread, specifically to get a clear understanding of what is expected of both the skeptic and the proponent of any given theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.I trust that clarifies things for you. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>For the life of me I cannot understand what "proof" has been provided that shows that SUSY particles exist.&nbsp; It therefore seems unreasonable to give SUSY related theories a "free pass" only because they are now considered "mainstream" and appear in numberous astronomy oriented papers.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As it relates to this specific topic, the example here I would cite relates to the last article by NASA </p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>An alternative explanation is that the surplus of high energy electrons might result from the annihilation of very exotic particles put forward to explain dark matter.</strong> In recent decades, scientists have learned that the kind of material making up the universe around us only accounts for about five percent of its mass composition. Close to 70 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy (so called because its nature is unknown). <strong>The remaining 25 percent of the mass acts gravitationally just like regular matter, but does little else, so it is normally not visible.</strong></DIV> </p><p>Emphasis mine.&nbsp; From a skeptics point of view, the assertion highlighted is purely an "ad hoc" assertion.&nbsp; There has never been any sort of link established that demonstrates that:</p><p>A) SUSY particles exist.</p><p>B) SUSY particles remain stable enough (longevity) to be considered "dark matter".</p><p>C) SUSY particles emit high energy electrons.</p><p>When one does a bit of reading, we find paper related to the half life of "dark matter", gamma rays attributed to "dark matter", high energy electrons being attributed to "dark matter", claims that "dark matter" passes right through other baryonic forms of matter, etc.&nbsp; These are all "ad hoc" "properties" that have been assigned to a particle that nobody has ever shown to even exist. However, that never stopped anyone from claiming that it is a more abundant form of matter than all the normal "baryonic" matter we know of. </p><p>Why are we to turn a blind eye to any theory only because it's become "well accept".&nbsp; Dogma and science are clearly different in one very real respect. Science is reproducable in emprical experimentation, whereas dogma is something I must simply accept on faith.&nbsp; If the skeptic is to be satisfied with an "explanation", shouldn't it require an emprical test of concept?&nbsp; Where is the empirical scientific evidence that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. Now that is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away ,MacDuff</DIV></p><p>Ok. It seems rather "odd" to a skeptic that WIMPS and SUSY oriented (non standard) particle physics theories have now become "mainstream" astronomy theories.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas MACHO oriented forms of DM theories require no new 'forms' of matter to exist, non baryonic forms of "dark matter" theories which are based on SUSY particles are necessarily a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory.&nbsp; Moreover, the "properties" that are now being 'assigned' to SUSY particles have become numerous and unfalsifiable.&nbsp; That recent NASA article Wayne posted claimed that 300-800 billion volt electrons were caused by "dark matter". These are the types of unflasifiable and unverifiable statements that have become more than a bit "questionable".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.</DIV></p><p>In order to "challenge" a theory, one has to have some idea of what it means to "explain" a theory, and what it takes to "prove" or "disprove" a specific theory. &nbsp; That ws the point of my other thread, specifically to get a clear understanding of what is expected of both the skeptic and the proponent of any given theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.I trust that clarifies things for you. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>For the life of me I cannot understand what "proof" has been provided that shows that SUSY particles exist.&nbsp; It therefore seems unreasonable to give SUSY related theories a "free pass" only because they are now considered "mainstream" and appear in numberous astronomy oriented papers.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As it relates to this specific topic, the example here I would cite relates to the last article by NASA </p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>An alternative explanation is that the surplus of high energy electrons might result from the annihilation of very exotic particles put forward to explain dark matter.</strong> In recent decades, scientists have learned that the kind of material making up the universe around us only accounts for about five percent of its mass composition. Close to 70 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy (so called because its nature is unknown). <strong>The remaining 25 percent of the mass acts gravitationally just like regular matter, but does little else, so it is normally not visible.</strong></DIV> </p><p>Emphasis mine.&nbsp; From a skeptics point of view, the assertion highlighted is purely an "ad hoc" assertion.&nbsp; There has never been any sort of link established that demonstrates that:</p><p>A) SUSY particles exist.</p><p>B) SUSY particles remain stable enough (longevity) to be considered "dark matter".</p><p>C) SUSY particles emit high energy electrons.</p><p>When one does a bit of reading, we find paper related to the half life of "dark matter", gamma rays attributed to "dark matter", high energy electrons being attributed to "dark matter", claims that "dark matter" passes right through other baryonic forms of matter, etc.&nbsp; These are all "ad hoc" "properties" that have been assigned to a particle that nobody has ever shown to even exist. However, that never stopped anyone from claiming that it is a more abundant form of matter than all the normal "baryonic" matter we know of. </p><p>Why are we to turn a blind eye to any theory only because it's become "well accept".&nbsp; Dogma and science are clearly different in one very real respect. Science is reproducable in emprical experimentation, whereas dogma is something I must simply accept on faith.&nbsp; If the skeptic is to be satisfied with an "explanation", shouldn't it require an emprical test of concept?&nbsp; Where is the empirical scientific evidence that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you read one of your recent prior posts, you will note it contains the answer:The only post of any mine of any "merit" IMO was the first one I made to this thread about the distinction between "MACHO" types of dark matter and other "non-baryonic" hypothetical SUSY particles. Now that is well within debating two aspects of that "mainstream accepted," and so is of course fine.&nbsp; WIMPS, CHAMPS, whatever.&nbsp; Debate away ,MacDuff</DIV></p><p>Ok. It seems rather "odd" to a skeptic that WIMPS and SUSY oriented (non standard) particle physics theories have now become "mainstream" astronomy theories.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas MACHO oriented forms of DM theories require no new 'forms' of matter to exist, non baryonic forms of "dark matter" theories which are based on SUSY particles are necessarily a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory.&nbsp; Moreover, the "properties" that are now being 'assigned' to SUSY particles have become numerous and unfalsifiable.&nbsp; That recent NASA article Wayne posted claimed that 300-800 billion volt electrons were caused by "dark matter". These are the types of unflasifiable and unverifiable statements that have become more than a bit "questionable".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A further answer to your own prior post asking about "being challenged" is that if a member in a hard science forum is challenged to "prove" their claim (insofar as is possible by skilled amateurs such as on this board), one must do so.&nbsp; That too is a rule we have.</DIV></p><p>In order to "challenge" a theory, one has to have some idea of what it means to "explain" a theory, and what it takes to "prove" or "disprove" a specific theory. &nbsp; That ws the point of my other thread, specifically to get a clear understanding of what is expected of both the skeptic and the proponent of any given theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> On the other hand, it tends to lean more heavily on the person who posts non-mainstream concepts, as it is not expected that someone who posts mainstream accepted concepts must keep re-proving what is alread accepted by that mainstream.I trust that clarifies things for you. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>For the life of me I cannot understand what "proof" has been provided that shows that SUSY particles exist.&nbsp; It therefore seems unreasonable to give SUSY related theories a "free pass" only because they are now considered "mainstream" and appear in numberous astronomy oriented papers.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As it relates to this specific topic, the example here I would cite relates to the last article by NASA </p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>An alternative explanation is that the surplus of high energy electrons might result from the annihilation of very exotic particles put forward to explain dark matter.</strong> In recent decades, scientists have learned that the kind of material making up the universe around us only accounts for about five percent of its mass composition. Close to 70 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy (so called because its nature is unknown). <strong>The remaining 25 percent of the mass acts gravitationally just like regular matter, but does little else, so it is normally not visible.</strong></DIV> </p><p>Emphasis mine.&nbsp; From a skeptics point of view, the assertion highlighted is purely an "ad hoc" assertion.&nbsp; There has never been any sort of link established that demonstrates that:</p><p>A) SUSY particles exist.</p><p>B) SUSY particles remain stable enough (longevity) to be considered "dark matter".</p><p>C) SUSY particles emit high energy electrons.</p><p>When one does a bit of reading, we find paper related to the half life of "dark matter", gamma rays attributed to "dark matter", high energy electrons being attributed to "dark matter", claims that "dark matter" passes right through other baryonic forms of matter, etc.&nbsp; These are all "ad hoc" "properties" that have been assigned to a particle that nobody has ever shown to even exist. However, that never stopped anyone from claiming that it is a more abundant form of matter than all the normal "baryonic" matter we know of. </p><p>Why are we to turn a blind eye to any theory only because it's become "well accept".&nbsp; Dogma and science are clearly different in one very real respect. Science is reproducable in emprical experimentation, whereas dogma is something I must simply accept on faith.&nbsp; If the skeptic is to be satisfied with an "explanation", shouldn't it require an emprical test of concept?&nbsp; Where is the empirical scientific evidence that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[Doc_Grey]

Wow, I definately got what I asked for when I made my original post: Your opinions. It's certainly underscored the significant lack of consensus!

 

[Doc_Grey]

Wow, I definately got what I asked for when I made my original post: Your opinions. It's certainly underscored the significant lack of consensus!

 

[Doc_Grey]

Wow, I definately got what I asked for when I made my original post: Your opinions. It's certainly underscored the significant lack of consensus!