<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>
Dark Matter...WTH?
Page 15 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<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>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,,, 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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Where did you claims that dark matter creates hundred billion electron volt electrons ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,,, 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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Where did you claims that dark matter creates hundred billion electron volt electrons ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,,, 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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Where did you claims that dark matter creates hundred billion electron volt electrons ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,,, 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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Where did you claims that dark matter creates hundred billion electron volt electrons ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
M
michaelmozina
Guest
M
michaelmozina
Guest
M
michaelmozina
Guest
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun. It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </p><p>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles. So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun. It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </p><p>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles. So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun. It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </p><p>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles. So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun. It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </p><p>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles. So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
MeteorWayne
Guest
<p>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is. Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</p><p>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation. We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</p><p>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY. </p><p>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"</p><p>You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me.</p><p> </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>
M
MeteorWayne
Guest
<p>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is. Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</p><p>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation. We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</p><p>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY. </p><p>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"</p><p>You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me.</p><p> </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>
M
MeteorWayne
Guest
<p>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is. Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</p><p>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation. We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</p><p>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY. </p><p>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"</p><p>You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me.</p><p> </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>
M
MeteorWayne
Guest
<p>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is. Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</p><p>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation. We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</p><p>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY. </p><p>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"</p><p>You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me.</p><p> </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is.</DIV></p><p>Kindly point me to that statement, or I will have to assume that this is YOUR pet strawman. I just got through explaining that while I have no problem with MACHO brands of "dark matter", I "lack belief" in other "new" forms of matter. I have no idea what causes the lensing patterns we observe, but I have no evidence that any of it is related to SUSY particles. That has never stopped anyone from suggesting it however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</DIV></p><p>What makes you think my mind is "closed' only because I "lack belief" in any new exotic forms of matter at this point in time, and I lack belief that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation.</DIV></p><p>I can't refute emprical, reproducable evidence, nor would I have any desire to do so. I would in fact be happy if someone *could* produce some tanglible empirical evidence of any of these so called "properties" that are now being associated with "dark matter". Unfortunately the entire industry can't produce a single gram of the stuff for inspection and testing, nor is there any emprical evidence for any of these assigned properties.</p><p>You seem to think I *want* to "lack belief" in these proposed exotic forms of matter, but in fact that is simply not the case. If emprical evidence to support it existed, such as it exists for neutrino mass, then I'd be happy with the idea. Since that is not the case, I'm "skeptical". Period. It's not personal, nor it is "intentional" as you seem to believe. I didn't *WANT* NASA to try to associate high energy electrons with "dark matter", they did that all by themselves. If they have provided emprical evidence to support that ad hoc assertion, I'd be fine with it too. The fact they made the assertion *without* emprical support is what raises red flags among it's skeptics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</DIV></p><p>Is NASA really looking for a good scientific explanation for those hundred billion volt eletrons, or are they simply trying to "pin the blame" on any old ad hoc explanation they can think of? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY.</DIV></p><p>Actually I personally am quite convinced that whatever the solution might be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with SUSY particles. I'd bet money on that in fact. How and why you figure I think SUSY particles are the "correct explanation" is beyond me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>As I explained from the start, there is a distinct difference between MACHO (normal matter) explanations for this "unidentified mass", and other "exotic" forms of "dark matter", complete with exotic properties that are also being proposed to explain this missing mass. It's not a strawman, or a "trash" of this thread, it's simply a scientific fact that is directly related to this topic. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is.</DIV></p><p>Kindly point me to that statement, or I will have to assume that this is YOUR pet strawman. I just got through explaining that while I have no problem with MACHO brands of "dark matter", I "lack belief" in other "new" forms of matter. I have no idea what causes the lensing patterns we observe, but I have no evidence that any of it is related to SUSY particles. That has never stopped anyone from suggesting it however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</DIV></p><p>What makes you think my mind is "closed' only because I "lack belief" in any new exotic forms of matter at this point in time, and I lack belief that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation.</DIV></p><p>I can't refute emprical, reproducable evidence, nor would I have any desire to do so. I would in fact be happy if someone *could* produce some tanglible empirical evidence of any of these so called "properties" that are now being associated with "dark matter". Unfortunately the entire industry can't produce a single gram of the stuff for inspection and testing, nor is there any emprical evidence for any of these assigned properties.</p><p>You seem to think I *want* to "lack belief" in these proposed exotic forms of matter, but in fact that is simply not the case. If emprical evidence to support it existed, such as it exists for neutrino mass, then I'd be happy with the idea. Since that is not the case, I'm "skeptical". Period. It's not personal, nor it is "intentional" as you seem to believe. I didn't *WANT* NASA to try to associate high energy electrons with "dark matter", they did that all by themselves. If they have provided emprical evidence to support that ad hoc assertion, I'd be fine with it too. The fact they made the assertion *without* emprical support is what raises red flags among it's skeptics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</DIV></p><p>Is NASA really looking for a good scientific explanation for those hundred billion volt eletrons, or are they simply trying to "pin the blame" on any old ad hoc explanation they can think of? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY.</DIV></p><p>Actually I personally am quite convinced that whatever the solution might be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with SUSY particles. I'd bet money on that in fact. How and why you figure I think SUSY particles are the "correct explanation" is beyond me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>As I explained from the start, there is a distinct difference between MACHO (normal matter) explanations for this "unidentified mass", and other "exotic" forms of "dark matter", complete with exotic properties that are also being proposed to explain this missing mass. It's not a strawman, or a "trash" of this thread, it's simply a scientific fact that is directly related to this topic. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is.</DIV></p><p>Kindly point me to that statement, or I will have to assume that this is YOUR pet strawman. I just got through explaining that while I have no problem with MACHO brands of "dark matter", I "lack belief" in other "new" forms of matter. I have no idea what causes the lensing patterns we observe, but I have no evidence that any of it is related to SUSY particles. That has never stopped anyone from suggesting it however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</DIV></p><p>What makes you think my mind is "closed' only because I "lack belief" in any new exotic forms of matter at this point in time, and I lack belief that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation.</DIV></p><p>I can't refute emprical, reproducable evidence, nor would I have any desire to do so. I would in fact be happy if someone *could* produce some tanglible empirical evidence of any of these so called "properties" that are now being associated with "dark matter". Unfortunately the entire industry can't produce a single gram of the stuff for inspection and testing, nor is there any emprical evidence for any of these assigned properties.</p><p>You seem to think I *want* to "lack belief" in these proposed exotic forms of matter, but in fact that is simply not the case. If emprical evidence to support it existed, such as it exists for neutrino mass, then I'd be happy with the idea. Since that is not the case, I'm "skeptical". Period. It's not personal, nor it is "intentional" as you seem to believe. I didn't *WANT* NASA to try to associate high energy electrons with "dark matter", they did that all by themselves. If they have provided emprical evidence to support that ad hoc assertion, I'd be fine with it too. The fact they made the assertion *without* emprical support is what raises red flags among it's skeptics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</DIV></p><p>Is NASA really looking for a good scientific explanation for those hundred billion volt eletrons, or are they simply trying to "pin the blame" on any old ad hoc explanation they can think of? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY.</DIV></p><p>Actually I personally am quite convinced that whatever the solution might be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with SUSY particles. I'd bet money on that in fact. How and why you figure I think SUSY particles are the "correct explanation" is beyond me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>As I explained from the start, there is a distinct difference between MACHO (normal matter) explanations for this "unidentified mass", and other "exotic" forms of "dark matter", complete with exotic properties that are also being proposed to explain this missing mass. It's not a strawman, or a "trash" of this thread, it's simply a scientific fact that is directly related to this topic. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>michael, your obsession with your pet strawman to be battled is really quite annoying. As I said, only YOU have stated with certainty what dark matter is.</DIV></p><p>Kindly point me to that statement, or I will have to assume that this is YOUR pet strawman. I just got through explaining that while I have no problem with MACHO brands of "dark matter", I "lack belief" in other "new" forms of matter. I have no idea what causes the lensing patterns we observe, but I have no evidence that any of it is related to SUSY particles. That has never stopped anyone from suggesting it however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everyone else's mind is open, since we mere mortals freely admit that we don't know how to explain the gravitational effects.</DIV></p><p>What makes you think my mind is "closed' only because I "lack belief" in any new exotic forms of matter at this point in time, and I lack belief that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As ususal, you are contructing your own strawman so you can demand evidence to refute it, while the rest of us know we have something that needs an explanation.</DIV></p><p>I can't refute emprical, reproducable evidence, nor would I have any desire to do so. I would in fact be happy if someone *could* produce some tanglible empirical evidence of any of these so called "properties" that are now being associated with "dark matter". Unfortunately the entire industry can't produce a single gram of the stuff for inspection and testing, nor is there any emprical evidence for any of these assigned properties.</p><p>You seem to think I *want* to "lack belief" in these proposed exotic forms of matter, but in fact that is simply not the case. If emprical evidence to support it existed, such as it exists for neutrino mass, then I'd be happy with the idea. Since that is not the case, I'm "skeptical". Period. It's not personal, nor it is "intentional" as you seem to believe. I didn't *WANT* NASA to try to associate high energy electrons with "dark matter", they did that all by themselves. If they have provided emprical evidence to support that ad hoc assertion, I'd be fine with it too. The fact they made the assertion *without* emprical support is what raises red flags among it's skeptics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We also admit we have no good explanation, unlike you, who knows what the entire research community (or industry, as you diss it) is still looking for an answer.</DIV></p><p>Is NASA really looking for a good scientific explanation for those hundred billion volt eletrons, or are they simply trying to "pin the blame" on any old ad hoc explanation they can think of? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very tiring....and quite pointless, since you are apparently the only person on earth who (while bashing the argument) knows that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY.</DIV></p><p>Actually I personally am quite convinced that whatever the solution might be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with SUSY particles. I'd bet money on that in fact. How and why you figure I think SUSY particles are the "correct explanation" is beyond me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you wish to assert that the only explanation for dark matter is SUSY particles, I suggest you take that argument to "The Unexplained"You will not be permitted to trash this thread. Trust me. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>As I explained from the start, there is a distinct difference between MACHO (normal matter) explanations for this "unidentified mass", and other "exotic" forms of "dark matter", complete with exotic properties that are also being proposed to explain this missing mass. It's not a strawman, or a "trash" of this thread, it's simply a scientific fact that is directly related to this topic. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. </DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Researchers from the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) collaboration, led by scientists at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, published the results in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Nature. The new results show an unexpected surplus of cosmic ray electrons at very high energy -- 300-800 billion electron volts -- that <strong>must come from a previously unidentified source or from the annihilation of very exotic theoretical particles used to explain dark matter</strong>.</DIV></p><p>Why did they conclude this DrRocket? What possible link between these energy states and "dark matter" exists? The answer is *none*. They could "come from" the universe itself too by the way. They don't *have* to be "created" locally as stated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun.</DIV></p><p>But then you'd expect that we would have already been aware of such an object in what amounts to our own backyard in terms of distance. That's most likely the reason they chose to include yet another option, an option that is totally devoid of empirical scientific support. What about the possibility that they're just "there" because the universe contains/conducts them?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. </DIV></p><p>Well, everyone seems to "know" that Alfven's theories have nothing to do with it. How? Why? Why not mention his work since it "predicted" a surplus of electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </DIV></p><p>Except that "work in progress" seems to have already "excluded" (and now moves to a different forum) perfectly good theories that already "predict" such things to exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles.</DIV></p><p>Show me any dark matter theory that "predicts" electrons in this energy range from any "exotic" particle and then show me an emprical test of concept. If you can do that, *then* it's logical to make this connection. If not (and we know there is no emprical link ever shown), then these are simply 'ad hoc' assertions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. </p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If and when there is ever an emprical link shown between supersymmetric particles and these high energy electrons, you let me know. As it stands now, these are exactly the kinds of ad hoc assertions that undermine the credibility of this industry. They might as well have claimed all unknown energy objects originate with SUSY annihilation. That's just not a logical assertion without good emprical support. There is *no* emprical support that SUSY particles even exist or stay stable long enough to explain such things. None of these statements are particularly compelling and I know of only one cosmology "theory" that actually anticipates and "predicts" high energy electrons, but I can't even talk about it or mention it here on this forum. How is that even "fair" let alone "open minded" as Wayne asserts? </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. </DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Researchers from the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) collaboration, led by scientists at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, published the results in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Nature. The new results show an unexpected surplus of cosmic ray electrons at very high energy -- 300-800 billion electron volts -- that <strong>must come from a previously unidentified source or from the annihilation of very exotic theoretical particles used to explain dark matter</strong>.</DIV></p><p>Why did they conclude this DrRocket? What possible link between these energy states and "dark matter" exists? The answer is *none*. They could "come from" the universe itself too by the way. They don't *have* to be "created" locally as stated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun.</DIV></p><p>But then you'd expect that we would have already been aware of such an object in what amounts to our own backyard in terms of distance. That's most likely the reason they chose to include yet another option, an option that is totally devoid of empirical scientific support. What about the possibility that they're just "there" because the universe contains/conducts them?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. </DIV></p><p>Well, everyone seems to "know" that Alfven's theories have nothing to do with it. How? Why? Why not mention his work since it "predicted" a surplus of electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </DIV></p><p>Except that "work in progress" seems to have already "excluded" (and now moves to a different forum) perfectly good theories that already "predict" such things to exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles.</DIV></p><p>Show me any dark matter theory that "predicts" electrons in this energy range from any "exotic" particle and then show me an emprical test of concept. If you can do that, *then* it's logical to make this connection. If not (and we know there is no emprical link ever shown), then these are simply 'ad hoc' assertions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. </p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If and when there is ever an emprical link shown between supersymmetric particles and these high energy electrons, you let me know. As it stands now, these are exactly the kinds of ad hoc assertions that undermine the credibility of this industry. They might as well have claimed all unknown energy objects originate with SUSY annihilation. That's just not a logical assertion without good emprical support. There is *no* emprical support that SUSY particles even exist or stay stable long enough to explain such things. None of these statements are particularly compelling and I know of only one cosmology "theory" that actually anticipates and "predicts" high energy electrons, but I can't even talk about it or mention it here on this forum. How is that even "fair" let alone "open minded" as Wayne asserts? </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not interpret that article as making claim that dark matter actually did produce the noted electrons. </DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Researchers from the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) collaboration, led by scientists at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, published the results in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Nature. The new results show an unexpected surplus of cosmic ray electrons at very high energy -- 300-800 billion electron volts -- that <strong>must come from a previously unidentified source or from the annihilation of very exotic theoretical particles used to explain dark matter</strong>.</DIV></p><p>Why did they conclude this DrRocket? What possible link between these energy states and "dark matter" exists? The answer is *none*. They could "come from" the universe itself too by the way. They don't *have* to be "created" locally as stated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I read is that there is no obvious source for the high-energy electrons, but several more-or-less conventinal possibilities were noted -- "According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun.</DIV></p><p>But then you'd expect that we would have already been aware of such an object in what amounts to our own backyard in terms of distance. That's most likely the reason they chose to include yet another option, an option that is totally devoid of empirical scientific support. What about the possibility that they're just "there" because the universe contains/conducts them?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole." Note the basic fact is that NO ONE KNOWS the origin of these electrons. </DIV></p><p>Well, everyone seems to "know" that Alfven's theories have nothing to do with it. How? Why? Why not mention his work since it "predicted" a surplus of electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physics is a research science, a work in progress. Open questions are part of the package. They are what make the research exciting. </DIV></p><p>Except that "work in progress" seems to have already "excluded" (and now moves to a different forum) perfectly good theories that already "predict" such things to exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They went on to note a possible non-conventional possibility, the annihilation of exotic particles.</DIV></p><p>Show me any dark matter theory that "predicts" electrons in this energy range from any "exotic" particle and then show me an emprical test of concept. If you can do that, *then* it's logical to make this connection. If not (and we know there is no emprical link ever shown), then these are simply 'ad hoc' assertions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So, yeah, one speculative theoretical possibility would be the annihilation of supersymmetric particles. But that is a far cry from a claim that the electrons actually have their origin in such phenomena. It is perfectly acceptable to note such a possibility, when you find a phenomena for which you have no clear explanation. That doesn't make it a claim and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And that is where we came in with the discussion of dark matter itself. It is a place holder (with rapidly increasing circumstantial evidence) itself. </p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If and when there is ever an emprical link shown between supersymmetric particles and these high energy electrons, you let me know. As it stands now, these are exactly the kinds of ad hoc assertions that undermine the credibility of this industry. They might as well have claimed all unknown energy objects originate with SUSY annihilation. That's just not a logical assertion without good emprical support. There is *no* emprical support that SUSY particles even exist or stay stable long enough to explain such things. None of these statements are particularly compelling and I know of only one cosmology "theory" that actually anticipates and "predicts" high energy electrons, but I can't even talk about it or mention it here on this forum. How is that even "fair" let alone "open minded" as Wayne asserts? </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
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 365
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 8K
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
-
-
Space.com is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram