<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. I was in a minor altercation wih a fool last evening (rear-ended the corporate vehicle, lied immediately to the Police - fortunately I was with two witnesses), came in the door full of piss and vinegar, and saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! I believe the quote (for any occasion) is "post in anger, repent at leisure." My apologies, Mea Culpa I am Human.You know, we are trapped by our limitations. This is the best we can do, to explain a vast mystery. [And seriously, the two were held back by others due to a heated argument over semantics] <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Sorry to hear you had a bad day (a very bad day in some regards). Fools can do that. But remember the motto <em>illlegitimi non</em> <em>carborundum.</em> We all have bad days and they are forgivable.</p><p>Do you happen to remember the subject of the semantic fist fight ? I have to admit never having seen such a thing in an academic environment. I have seen it elsewhere, but always the fundamental issue, sometimes not clearly stated, was money.</p><p>Sometimes arguments that appear to be about concrete issues turn out to be semantic. And sometimes issues that appear to be semantic turn out to have real substance. And sometimes, it takes prolonged discussion to determine what the situation really is. That exchange that you referenced between Mr. Mozina and me started out being concrete, looked at one stage as though it might be semantic, and finally revealed itself as being about fundamental physics, and not semantics. The disagreement in that case was over magnetic reconnection, the source of the agreement was and remains rooted in basic understanding of electrodynamics, and it was never resolved (neither of us changed our minds and I don't think are likely to).</p><p>Sometimes in a forum such as this semantic difficulties can arise because of the use of terminology that has a precise meaning within a speciality, but a somewhat different meaning to a general English-speaking audience. Terms that are understood in a technical context may be misinterpreted by others, and even specialists when speaking to a mixed audience may not understand how different people understand different terms.</p><p>So, in the interest of clear communication, I will define "to image" as I understand the term in the present scientific context. To image is to produce a representation of a material or phenomenon, usually a visual representation, that describes the position and distribution of that material or phenomenon, and often additional information regarding properties such as density, temperature or internal structure (this list is not inclusive). The information that is gathered to produce the image may and often is collected from electromagnetic emission, but might also be based on electromagnetic absorption, sonic waves (reflection, through transmission, pitch-catch), stress/strain sensors, or any other physical data. It may be presented in raw form or processed, as with computed tomography. But whatever the source or type of information used to produce the image, the information is produced by some direct interaction between the item being imaged and the energy detected by the sensor that gathers the relevant data. I do not consider an image of item A to be an image of item B showing an anomaly that cannot be explained by what is seen in the image of B and an inference therefrom that A is present in the background. This does not exclude negative images -- I do accept as an image the detection of lack of energy where energy would be seen if there were not an absorber acting. So I do think it is possible, in principle, to image a black hole (black hole here meaning the boundary of the event horizon and not the hypothesized singularity) just as one can produce an image of a shadow. I think it possible, again in principle, to produce an image based on gravitational waves, but not with our current technology, which has thus far not been able to directly detect such waves.</p><p>I do not consider the various photographs of ghosts that have been published to be images of ghosts or proof of the existence of such things. It takes more than the precipitation of some silver from solution to be an image in the scientific sense described above. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. I was in a minor altercation wih a fool last evening (rear-ended the corporate vehicle, lied immediately to the Police - fortunately I was with two witnesses), came in the door full of piss and vinegar, and saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! I believe the quote (for any occasion) is "post in anger, repent at leisure." My apologies, Mea Culpa I am Human.You know, we are trapped by our limitations. This is the best we can do, to explain a vast mystery. [And seriously, the two were held back by others due to a heated argument over semantics] <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Sorry to hear you had a bad day (a very bad day in some regards). Fools can do that. But remember the motto <em>illlegitimi non</em> <em>carborundum.</em> We all have bad days and they are forgivable.</p><p>Do you happen to remember the subject of the semantic fist fight ? I have to admit never having seen such a thing in an academic environment. I have seen it elsewhere, but always the fundamental issue, sometimes not clearly stated, was money.</p><p>Sometimes arguments that appear to be about concrete issues turn out to be semantic. And sometimes issues that appear to be semantic turn out to have real substance. And sometimes, it takes prolonged discussion to determine what the situation really is. That exchange that you referenced between Mr. Mozina and me started out being concrete, looked at one stage as though it might be semantic, and finally revealed itself as being about fundamental physics, and not semantics. The disagreement in that case was over magnetic reconnection, the source of the agreement was and remains rooted in basic understanding of electrodynamics, and it was never resolved (neither of us changed our minds and I don't think are likely to).</p><p>Sometimes in a forum such as this semantic difficulties can arise because of the use of terminology that has a precise meaning within a speciality, but a somewhat different meaning to a general English-speaking audience. Terms that are understood in a technical context may be misinterpreted by others, and even specialists when speaking to a mixed audience may not understand how different people understand different terms.</p><p>So, in the interest of clear communication, I will define "to image" as I understand the term in the present scientific context. To image is to produce a representation of a material or phenomenon, usually a visual representation, that describes the position and distribution of that material or phenomenon, and often additional information regarding properties such as density, temperature or internal structure (this list is not inclusive). The information that is gathered to produce the image may and often is collected from electromagnetic emission, but might also be based on electromagnetic absorption, sonic waves (reflection, through transmission, pitch-catch), stress/strain sensors, or any other physical data. It may be presented in raw form or processed, as with computed tomography. But whatever the source or type of information used to produce the image, the information is produced by some direct interaction between the item being imaged and the energy detected by the sensor that gathers the relevant data. I do not consider an image of item A to be an image of item B showing an anomaly that cannot be explained by what is seen in the image of B and an inference therefrom that A is present in the background. This does not exclude negative images -- I do accept as an image the detection of lack of energy where energy would be seen if there were not an absorber acting. So I do think it is possible, in principle, to image a black hole (black hole here meaning the boundary of the event horizon and not the hypothesized singularity) just as one can produce an image of a shadow. I think it possible, again in principle, to produce an image based on gravitational waves, but not with our current technology, which has thus far not been able to directly detect such waves.</p><p>I do not consider the various photographs of ghosts that have been published to be images of ghosts or proof of the existence of such things. It takes more than the precipitation of some silver from solution to be an image in the scientific sense described above. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. I was in a minor altercation wih a fool last evening (rear-ended the corporate vehicle, lied immediately to the Police - fortunately I was with two witnesses), came in the door full of piss and vinegar, and saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! I believe the quote (for any occasion) is "post in anger, repent at leisure." My apologies, Mea Culpa I am Human.You know, we are trapped by our limitations. This is the best we can do, to explain a vast mystery. [And seriously, the two were held back by others due to a heated argument over semantics] <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Sorry to hear you had a bad day (a very bad day in some regards). Fools can do that. But remember the motto <em>illlegitimi non</em> <em>carborundum.</em> We all have bad days and they are forgivable.</p><p>Do you happen to remember the subject of the semantic fist fight ? I have to admit never having seen such a thing in an academic environment. I have seen it elsewhere, but always the fundamental issue, sometimes not clearly stated, was money.</p><p>Sometimes arguments that appear to be about concrete issues turn out to be semantic. And sometimes issues that appear to be semantic turn out to have real substance. And sometimes, it takes prolonged discussion to determine what the situation really is. That exchange that you referenced between Mr. Mozina and me started out being concrete, looked at one stage as though it might be semantic, and finally revealed itself as being about fundamental physics, and not semantics. The disagreement in that case was over magnetic reconnection, the source of the agreement was and remains rooted in basic understanding of electrodynamics, and it was never resolved (neither of us changed our minds and I don't think are likely to).</p><p>Sometimes in a forum such as this semantic difficulties can arise because of the use of terminology that has a precise meaning within a speciality, but a somewhat different meaning to a general English-speaking audience. Terms that are understood in a technical context may be misinterpreted by others, and even specialists when speaking to a mixed audience may not understand how different people understand different terms.</p><p>So, in the interest of clear communication, I will define "to image" as I understand the term in the present scientific context. To image is to produce a representation of a material or phenomenon, usually a visual representation, that describes the position and distribution of that material or phenomenon, and often additional information regarding properties such as density, temperature or internal structure (this list is not inclusive). The information that is gathered to produce the image may and often is collected from electromagnetic emission, but might also be based on electromagnetic absorption, sonic waves (reflection, through transmission, pitch-catch), stress/strain sensors, or any other physical data. It may be presented in raw form or processed, as with computed tomography. But whatever the source or type of information used to produce the image, the information is produced by some direct interaction between the item being imaged and the energy detected by the sensor that gathers the relevant data. I do not consider an image of item A to be an image of item B showing an anomaly that cannot be explained by what is seen in the image of B and an inference therefrom that A is present in the background. This does not exclude negative images -- I do accept as an image the detection of lack of energy where energy would be seen if there were not an absorber acting. So I do think it is possible, in principle, to image a black hole (black hole here meaning the boundary of the event horizon and not the hypothesized singularity) just as one can produce an image of a shadow. I think it possible, again in principle, to produce an image based on gravitational waves, but not with our current technology, which has thus far not been able to directly detect such waves.</p><p>I do not consider the various photographs of ghosts that have been published to be images of ghosts or proof of the existence of such things. It takes more than the precipitation of some silver from solution to be an image in the scientific sense described above. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Hey, we're all human. 
</p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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>
</p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Hey, we're all human. </p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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>
</p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Hey, we're all human. </p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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>
</p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argh.Sorry. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Hey, we're all human. </p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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>
</p><p>Respectfully yevaud, I think there is more at stake than simply semantics. There is a truly *fundamentally* new form of matter being posited here. There is more than just a semantic difference between suggesting that this "unexplained mass" is composed of a completely new form of matter, vs. just suggesting that we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in these galaxies. It's the difference between suggesting that an object you see in the sky is an "unidentified object", vs. jumping to the conclusion that *must* come from another planet.</p><p>If this were only an issue of semantics, I would not have a problem with you suggesting that we had an image of "dark matter". You also however combined this idea with another idea that a *new* type of mass was required to explain this lensing phenomenon. By combining these two idea, it's more than just an issue of pure semantics. Yes, we can tell where we grossly underestimated the mass of a region based on the light we observe from that region. No, it is not necessarily the case that a *new* form of matter is the *only* way this lensing information can be "interpreteted".</p><p>IMO, this isn't just a "nitpick" because SUSY theory is *non standard* particle physics theory. It's a bit like me trying to stuff non standard astronomy concepts into particle physics theory and using it to create a new "mainstream" particle physics theory. That has in fact happened here. While no emprical evidence exists to support SUSY oriented forms of matter, the mainstream of astronomy has put most of it's eggs in that basket anyway. It suggests (not just you individually) that most of the "missing mass" is composed of some new form of matter. This has *never* been established by any form of emprical science.</p><p>The problem with suggesting that a new form of matter is repsonsible for this lensing effect is that there is nothing to substanciate this claim from the realm of particle physics, at least as it relates to emprical testing.</p><p>The part that is "frustrating" to a "skeptic" is the number of "properties" that now being assigned to presumed SUSY related particles. We are now to *assume* that these particles (should the even be found) have the following "properties":</p><p>A) Invisibility: Evidently they are "dark" and emit no light. Not established by empirical tests.</p><p>B) Pass through walls at will: Evidently this matter passes directly through other forms of matter. Not empricallly established.</p><p>C) Has longevity: Evidently it has a half life in the billions of years. Not established. For all we know SUSY particle immediately decay into other forms of matter.</p><p>D) Emits gamma rays at half life decay. This not only goes against the idea it's "dark" matter in the first place, it's also not established that a decay reaction of any SUSY particle causes a gamma ray to be emitted.</p><p>E) Emits high energy electrons. Again, this was a purely "ad hoc" claim made by NASA. Tsk, tsk.</p><p>These types of "properties" that may or may not relate to any form of SUSY particle have put the notion of "dark matter" into the realm of science fiction, not science fact. There is no known SUSY particle. None of them have been shown to have any of the afformentioned properties, starting with any form of longevity, the obvious problem form the start.</p><p>The "dogma" that a new form of matter is necessary to explain lensing effects is unsubstanciated by any form of emprical science. It's pure dogma that "dark matter" may or may not emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, have a half life in the billions of years, pass through walls, etc. It's pure dogma, and there is more than just an issue of semantics at stake here.</p><p>Children are being "taught" that a new form of matter exists, it is responsible for the lensing data we observe and it's been observed in images. None of these things are true based on emprical science. They are only different "interpretations" of what is ultimately nothing more than some lensing phenomenon around distant galaxies.</p><p>All we actually *know* with scientific certainty is that we grossly understimated the amount of mass in a galaxy. Period. We don't *know* that any new forms of matter are required to explain these lensing phenomenon. All we *know* is that there is an "enigma" associated with what we observe that we can't explain by our current theories.</p><p>If and when anyone can show that SUSY particles,</p><p>A) exist at all,</p><p>B) don't decay into "normal" matter in milliseconds.</p><p>C) pass through other forms of matter,</p><p>D) Emit light and electrons,</p><p>then I'll be happy to let you believe that we have "images" of "dark matter". At the moment however, that just is not the case, not by my standards, and not even by DrRocket's standards. The fact we both agree on that point should tell you that this isn't just an issue of semantics, there are some important *ideas* here at stake. </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><p>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. </p><p>The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. </p><p>The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. </p><p>The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. </p><p>The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Actually however, I don't even believe in SUSY particles at all. I do however accept "MACHO" forms of dark matter, "electrons" at various voltage levels, and a host of potential forms of mass inside galaxies. I do however see paper after paper attributing "properties" to "dark matter", like it's ability to pass through other forms of matter. That's quite a nifty trick and all, but I'd love to see an emprical test of concept before I jump on board with the idea. I've never seen a controlled test that "required" a "new" form of "dark matter". The MACHO brand I was taught in school is still fine by me personally.</p><p>I hear you on the gravity issue. I'm sort of leaning toward a quantum "pushing" explanation of that particuluar phenomenon. There is in fact a lot we don't know about the universe, but IMO is is way too early to suggest that "new" forms of matter are required to explain distant lensing effects in space. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Actually however, I don't even believe in SUSY particles at all. I do however accept "MACHO" forms of dark matter, "electrons" at various voltage levels, and a host of potential forms of mass inside galaxies. I do however see paper after paper attributing "properties" to "dark matter", like it's ability to pass through other forms of matter. That's quite a nifty trick and all, but I'd love to see an emprical test of concept before I jump on board with the idea. I've never seen a controlled test that "required" a "new" form of "dark matter". The MACHO brand I was taught in school is still fine by me personally.</p><p>I hear you on the gravity issue. I'm sort of leaning toward a quantum "pushing" explanation of that particuluar phenomenon. There is in fact a lot we don't know about the universe, but IMO is is way too early to suggest that "new" forms of matter are required to explain distant lensing effects in space. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Actually however, I don't even believe in SUSY particles at all. I do however accept "MACHO" forms of dark matter, "electrons" at various voltage levels, and a host of potential forms of mass inside galaxies. I do however see paper after paper attributing "properties" to "dark matter", like it's ability to pass through other forms of matter. That's quite a nifty trick and all, but I'd love to see an emprical test of concept before I jump on board with the idea. I've never seen a controlled test that "required" a "new" form of "dark matter". The MACHO brand I was taught in school is still fine by me personally.</p><p>I hear you on the gravity issue. I'm sort of leaning toward a quantum "pushing" explanation of that particuluar phenomenon. There is in fact a lot we don't know about the universe, but IMO is is way too early to suggest that "new" forms of matter are required to explain distant lensing effects in space. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Actually however, I don't even believe in SUSY particles at all. I do however accept "MACHO" forms of dark matter, "electrons" at various voltage levels, and a host of potential forms of mass inside galaxies. I do however see paper after paper attributing "properties" to "dark matter", like it's ability to pass through other forms of matter. That's quite a nifty trick and all, but I'd love to see an emprical test of concept before I jump on board with the idea. I've never seen a controlled test that "required" a "new" form of "dark matter". The MACHO brand I was taught in school is still fine by me personally.</p><p>I hear you on the gravity issue. I'm sort of leaning toward a quantum "pushing" explanation of that particuluar phenomenon. There is in fact a lot we don't know about the universe, but IMO is is way too early to suggest that "new" forms of matter are required to explain distant lensing effects in space. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.....saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Ya know, I'm struggling with the role of "skeptic" in this industry. I'd like to have more "friends". It's not easy being skeptical of any topic and not tick people off with that skepticism sooner or later. If there's something about my "style" that makes this skeptical review of this topic more difficult than is necessary, by all means, explain it to me, I'm more than happy to learn to become a better "communicator". </p><p>In this particular instance, I'm sure there is plenty of "matter" to be found in MACHO forms of "dark matter" that are unaccounted for in our current galaxy "estimating techniques". I am however quite skeptical about the necessity of introducing "new and improved" forms of matter to explain such lensing and rotation observations. I happen to agree that "dark matter" is a "better" scientific explanation than MOND forms of galaxy rotation patterns based on lensing studies. I'm far more "skeptical" of new forms of matter. </p><p> I hope you at least realize that it's not my intent to tick you (or anyone else) off or to be difficult to deal with. It's simply that I can't accept "faith" as a substitute for emprical evidence and still be comfortable calling it "science". That tends to alienate me to a great degree astronomers, whereas I've not experience that problem in any other area of "science".</p><p>It's not personal from my perspective, I just can "believe" in something because I want to fit in. I need to "believe" in scientific truths because there is "emprical scientific support" of that belief. This is what separates religion from science. That is not to say there is anything wrong with religion, but there is and should be a distinction between the two. Faith my have it's purpose, but faith should not be required in a "science" class. </p><p>I really am not attempting to be "difficult" and it's not my intent to alienate anyone by my skepticism of mainstream theories. It's just that I can't turn on and off my beliefs based on what's popular, or "easy" or because its a "friendlier" position to be in. I wish I could turn off my scientific scepticism and need for emprical verification, but unfortunately I can't. This focus on empricism is something I do in my own profession, and something I do in every scientific persuit I put my time into. So far the emprical method of science has served me very well and it works for astronomy too IMO. It may not expain *every* observation in the unviverse, but it should explain "most" of them. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.....saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Ya know, I'm struggling with the role of "skeptic" in this industry. I'd like to have more "friends". It's not easy being skeptical of any topic and not tick people off with that skepticism sooner or later. If there's something about my "style" that makes this skeptical review of this topic more difficult than is necessary, by all means, explain it to me, I'm more than happy to learn to become a better "communicator". </p><p>In this particular instance, I'm sure there is plenty of "matter" to be found in MACHO forms of "dark matter" that are unaccounted for in our current galaxy "estimating techniques". I am however quite skeptical about the necessity of introducing "new and improved" forms of matter to explain such lensing and rotation observations. I happen to agree that "dark matter" is a "better" scientific explanation than MOND forms of galaxy rotation patterns based on lensing studies. I'm far more "skeptical" of new forms of matter. </p><p> I hope you at least realize that it's not my intent to tick you (or anyone else) off or to be difficult to deal with. It's simply that I can't accept "faith" as a substitute for emprical evidence and still be comfortable calling it "science". That tends to alienate me to a great degree astronomers, whereas I've not experience that problem in any other area of "science".</p><p>It's not personal from my perspective, I just can "believe" in something because I want to fit in. I need to "believe" in scientific truths because there is "emprical scientific support" of that belief. This is what separates religion from science. That is not to say there is anything wrong with religion, but there is and should be a distinction between the two. Faith my have it's purpose, but faith should not be required in a "science" class. </p><p>I really am not attempting to be "difficult" and it's not my intent to alienate anyone by my skepticism of mainstream theories. It's just that I can't turn on and off my beliefs based on what's popular, or "easy" or because its a "friendlier" position to be in. I wish I could turn off my scientific scepticism and need for emprical verification, but unfortunately I can't. This focus on empricism is something I do in my own profession, and something I do in every scientific persuit I put my time into. So far the emprical method of science has served me very well and it works for astronomy too IMO. It may not expain *every* observation in the unviverse, but it should explain "most" of them. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.....saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Ya know, I'm struggling with the role of "skeptic" in this industry. I'd like to have more "friends". It's not easy being skeptical of any topic and not tick people off with that skepticism sooner or later. If there's something about my "style" that makes this skeptical review of this topic more difficult than is necessary, by all means, explain it to me, I'm more than happy to learn to become a better "communicator". </p><p>In this particular instance, I'm sure there is plenty of "matter" to be found in MACHO forms of "dark matter" that are unaccounted for in our current galaxy "estimating techniques". I am however quite skeptical about the necessity of introducing "new and improved" forms of matter to explain such lensing and rotation observations. I happen to agree that "dark matter" is a "better" scientific explanation than MOND forms of galaxy rotation patterns based on lensing studies. I'm far more "skeptical" of new forms of matter. </p><p> I hope you at least realize that it's not my intent to tick you (or anyone else) off or to be difficult to deal with. It's simply that I can't accept "faith" as a substitute for emprical evidence and still be comfortable calling it "science". That tends to alienate me to a great degree astronomers, whereas I've not experience that problem in any other area of "science".</p><p>It's not personal from my perspective, I just can "believe" in something because I want to fit in. I need to "believe" in scientific truths because there is "emprical scientific support" of that belief. This is what separates religion from science. That is not to say there is anything wrong with religion, but there is and should be a distinction between the two. Faith my have it's purpose, but faith should not be required in a "science" class. </p><p>I really am not attempting to be "difficult" and it's not my intent to alienate anyone by my skepticism of mainstream theories. It's just that I can't turn on and off my beliefs based on what's popular, or "easy" or because its a "friendlier" position to be in. I wish I could turn off my scientific scepticism and need for emprical verification, but unfortunately I can't. This focus on empricism is something I do in my own profession, and something I do in every scientific persuit I put my time into. So far the emprical method of science has served me very well and it works for astronomy too IMO. It may not expain *every* observation in the unviverse, but it should explain "most" of them. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.....saw Mike's post. Boy, was I ticked! <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Ya know, I'm struggling with the role of "skeptic" in this industry. I'd like to have more "friends". It's not easy being skeptical of any topic and not tick people off with that skepticism sooner or later. If there's something about my "style" that makes this skeptical review of this topic more difficult than is necessary, by all means, explain it to me, I'm more than happy to learn to become a better "communicator". </p><p>In this particular instance, I'm sure there is plenty of "matter" to be found in MACHO forms of "dark matter" that are unaccounted for in our current galaxy "estimating techniques". I am however quite skeptical about the necessity of introducing "new and improved" forms of matter to explain such lensing and rotation observations. I happen to agree that "dark matter" is a "better" scientific explanation than MOND forms of galaxy rotation patterns based on lensing studies. I'm far more "skeptical" of new forms of matter. </p><p> I hope you at least realize that it's not my intent to tick you (or anyone else) off or to be difficult to deal with. It's simply that I can't accept "faith" as a substitute for emprical evidence and still be comfortable calling it "science". That tends to alienate me to a great degree astronomers, whereas I've not experience that problem in any other area of "science".</p><p>It's not personal from my perspective, I just can "believe" in something because I want to fit in. I need to "believe" in scientific truths because there is "emprical scientific support" of that belief. This is what separates religion from science. That is not to say there is anything wrong with religion, but there is and should be a distinction between the two. Faith my have it's purpose, but faith should not be required in a "science" class. </p><p>I really am not attempting to be "difficult" and it's not my intent to alienate anyone by my skepticism of mainstream theories. It's just that I can't turn on and off my beliefs based on what's popular, or "easy" or because its a "friendlier" position to be in. I wish I could turn off my scientific scepticism and need for emprical verification, but unfortunately I can't. This focus on empricism is something I do in my own profession, and something I do in every scientific persuit I put my time into. So far the emprical method of science has served me very well and it works for astronomy too IMO. It may not expain *every* observation in the unviverse, but it should explain "most" of them. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think Michael is rather adamant in the other direction. But your point remains valid. </p><p>However, that sure does speed up a lot of things. I guess that we don't need the LHC to help confirm or deny supersymmetry then -- that will really cut the work load of a boat load of particle physicists. Maybe we won't even need to restart the facility. So much for "empirical science".</p><p>It also pulls the plug on string theorists, since string theory/M theory needs supersymmetry. I guess that we won't be able to count on the economy being buoyed up by a lot of consumer spending from soon-to-be fired string theorists in this pre-Christmas season. </p><p>What amazing progress. A major issue in theoretical physics solved -- with nothing but an ordinary PC keyboard.</p><p>However, contrary to what has been implied, supersymmetry has been around as a hypothesis and as a theoretical construct for several decades. It is as mainstream as is string theory, which is to say it is a valid avenue of theoretical research in physics, but not a validated theory by a long shot. I have no idea if SUSY particles exist or not. Neither does anyone else. It they do I don't have any idea if they account for a significant part of what is called "dark matter". That is one example of why physics remains a valid area of research science; we don't know everything but we are trying to find out.</p><p>Damn I wish I had as clear a crystal ball as does Michael. All of mine are pretty cloudy.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think Michael is rather adamant in the other direction. But your point remains valid. </p><p>However, that sure does speed up a lot of things. I guess that we don't need the LHC to help confirm or deny supersymmetry then -- that will really cut the work load of a boat load of particle physicists. Maybe we won't even need to restart the facility. So much for "empirical science".</p><p>It also pulls the plug on string theorists, since string theory/M theory needs supersymmetry. I guess that we won't be able to count on the economy being buoyed up by a lot of consumer spending from soon-to-be fired string theorists in this pre-Christmas season. </p><p>What amazing progress. A major issue in theoretical physics solved -- with nothing but an ordinary PC keyboard.</p><p>However, contrary to what has been implied, supersymmetry has been around as a hypothesis and as a theoretical construct for several decades. It is as mainstream as is string theory, which is to say it is a valid avenue of theoretical research in physics, but not a validated theory by a long shot. I have no idea if SUSY particles exist or not. Neither does anyone else. It they do I don't have any idea if they account for a significant part of what is called "dark matter". That is one example of why physics remains a valid area of research science; we don't know everything but we are trying to find out.</p><p>Damn I wish I had as clear a crystal ball as does Michael. All of mine are pretty cloudy.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think Michael is rather adamant in the other direction. But your point remains valid. </p><p>However, that sure does speed up a lot of things. I guess that we don't need the LHC to help confirm or deny supersymmetry then -- that will really cut the work load of a boat load of particle physicists. Maybe we won't even need to restart the facility. So much for "empirical science".</p><p>It also pulls the plug on string theorists, since string theory/M theory needs supersymmetry. I guess that we won't be able to count on the economy being buoyed up by a lot of consumer spending from soon-to-be fired string theorists in this pre-Christmas season. </p><p>What amazing progress. A major issue in theoretical physics solved -- with nothing but an ordinary PC keyboard.</p><p>However, contrary to what has been implied, supersymmetry has been around as a hypothesis and as a theoretical construct for several decades. It is as mainstream as is string theory, which is to say it is a valid avenue of theoretical research in physics, but not a validated theory by a long shot. I have no idea if SUSY particles exist or not. Neither does anyone else. It they do I don't have any idea if they account for a significant part of what is called "dark matter". That is one example of why physics remains a valid area of research science; we don't know everything but we are trying to find out.</p><p>Damn I wish I had as clear a crystal ball as does Michael. All of mine are pretty cloudy.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, you are the only one who seems to know enough about dark matter to unequivocally state they are supersymmetric particles. It is only one of quite a few potential explanations. The point is, we see the effects but we don't know where the gravitation come from yet. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think Michael is rather adamant in the other direction. But your point remains valid. </p><p>However, that sure does speed up a lot of things. I guess that we don't need the LHC to help confirm or deny supersymmetry then -- that will really cut the work load of a boat load of particle physicists. Maybe we won't even need to restart the facility. So much for "empirical science".</p><p>It also pulls the plug on string theorists, since string theory/M theory needs supersymmetry. I guess that we won't be able to count on the economy being buoyed up by a lot of consumer spending from soon-to-be fired string theorists in this pre-Christmas season. </p><p>What amazing progress. A major issue in theoretical physics solved -- with nothing but an ordinary PC keyboard.</p><p>However, contrary to what has been implied, supersymmetry has been around as a hypothesis and as a theoretical construct for several decades. It is as mainstream as is string theory, which is to say it is a valid avenue of theoretical research in physics, but not a validated theory by a long shot. I have no idea if SUSY particles exist or not. Neither does anyone else. It they do I don't have any idea if they account for a significant part of what is called "dark matter". That is one example of why physics remains a valid area of research science; we don't know everything but we are trying to find out.</p><p>Damn I wish I had as clear a crystal ball as does Michael. All of mine are pretty cloudy.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think Michael is rather adamant in the other direction. But your point remains valid. However, that sure does speed up a lot of things. I guess that we don't need the LHC to help confirm or deny supersymmetry then -- that will really cut the work load of a boat load of particle physicists. Maybe we won't even need to restart the facility. So much for "empirical science".It also pulls the plug on string theorists, since string theory/M theory needs supersymmetry. I guess that we won't be able to count on the economy being buoyed up by a lot of consumer spending from soon-to-be fired string theorists in this pre-Christmas season. What amazing progress. A major issue in theoretical physics solved -- with nothing but an ordinary PC keyboard.However, contrary to what has been implied, supersymmetry has been around as a hypothesis and as a theoretical construct for several decades. It is as mainstream as is string theory, which is to say it is a valid avenue of theoretical research in physics, but not a validated theory by a long shot. I have no idea if SUSY particles exist or not. Neither does anyone else. It they do I don't have any idea if they account for a significant part of what is called "dark matter". That is one example of why physics remains a valid area of research science; we don't know everything but we are trying to find out.Damn I wish I had as clear a crystal ball as does Michael. All of mine are pretty cloudy. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I love the creative little strawmen you come up with. Of course the fact I happen to be a big supporter of the LHC program would never stop you from suggesting I've already anticipated the outcome of all their experiments.</p><p>I just don't have any emprical evidence *yet* than any new forms of matter exist. If and when the LHC finds some evidence of new particles, then I'll be the first to congradulate them. Of course there is no guarantee that anything they find will "fit" with any of the "properties" assigned to "Dark matter" in terms of longivity, etc. If they find such evidence, great, I'll be happy to let you use some of that to explain what we observe elsewhere. If not, then what?</p><p>FYI, even without emprical support I'm not insisting that non-baryonic forms of matter be considered "unexplained" and treated any differently than any other theory. I've yet to see anyone "explain" how "dark matter" creates hundred billion volt electrons, but I've certainly read articles on NASA websites making this claim. Why? What "scientific" evidence demonstrates that this is even possible? </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think Michael is rather adamant in the other direction. But your point remains valid. However, that sure does speed up a lot of things. I guess that we don't need the LHC to help confirm or deny supersymmetry then -- that will really cut the work load of a boat load of particle physicists. Maybe we won't even need to restart the facility. So much for "empirical science".It also pulls the plug on string theorists, since string theory/M theory needs supersymmetry. I guess that we won't be able to count on the economy being buoyed up by a lot of consumer spending from soon-to-be fired string theorists in this pre-Christmas season. What amazing progress. A major issue in theoretical physics solved -- with nothing but an ordinary PC keyboard.However, contrary to what has been implied, supersymmetry has been around as a hypothesis and as a theoretical construct for several decades. It is as mainstream as is string theory, which is to say it is a valid avenue of theoretical research in physics, but not a validated theory by a long shot. I have no idea if SUSY particles exist or not. Neither does anyone else. It they do I don't have any idea if they account for a significant part of what is called "dark matter". That is one example of why physics remains a valid area of research science; we don't know everything but we are trying to find out.Damn I wish I had as clear a crystal ball as does Michael. All of mine are pretty cloudy. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I love the creative little strawmen you come up with. Of course the fact I happen to be a big supporter of the LHC program would never stop you from suggesting I've already anticipated the outcome of all their experiments.</p><p>I just don't have any emprical evidence *yet* than any new forms of matter exist. If and when the LHC finds some evidence of new particles, then I'll be the first to congradulate them. Of course there is no guarantee that anything they find will "fit" with any of the "properties" assigned to "Dark matter" in terms of longivity, etc. If they find such evidence, great, I'll be happy to let you use some of that to explain what we observe elsewhere. If not, then what?</p><p>FYI, even without emprical support I'm not insisting that non-baryonic forms of matter be considered "unexplained" and treated any differently than any other theory. I've yet to see anyone "explain" how "dark matter" creates hundred billion volt electrons, but I've certainly read articles on NASA websites making this claim. Why? What "scientific" evidence demonstrates that this is even possible? </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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram