<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
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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? 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? 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. 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.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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </p><p>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ?</p><p> <img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:lSzgKKQXI6jzuM:http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/gifs/yosemite.jpg" alt="" width="107" height="86" /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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? 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? 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. 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.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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </p><p>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ?</p><p> <img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:lSzgKKQXI6jzuM:http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/gifs/yosemite.jpg" alt="" width="107" height="86" /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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? 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? 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. 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.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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </p><p>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ?</p><p> <img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:lSzgKKQXI6jzuM:http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/gifs/yosemite.jpg" alt="" width="107" height="86" /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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? 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? 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. 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.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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </p><p>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ?</p><p> <img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:lSzgKKQXI6jzuM:http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/gifs/yosemite.jpg" alt="" width="107" height="86" /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</p><p>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</p><p>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</p><p>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</p><p>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I dunno. From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation. The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source. One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter. I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of SUSY particles somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far. I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people.</p><p><br />Or maybe it is a publicity stunt by the Everly Brothers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabt0QXJ_GY</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I dunno. From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation. The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source. One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter. I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of SUSY particles somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far. I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people.</p><p><br />Or maybe it is a publicity stunt by the Everly Brothers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabt0QXJ_GY</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I dunno. From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation. The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source. One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter. I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of SUSY particles somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far. I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people.</p><p><br />Or maybe it is a publicity stunt by the Everly Brothers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabt0QXJ_GY</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron. Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present? There is not such evidence present. I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I dunno. From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation. The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source. One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter. I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of SUSY particles somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far. I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people.</p><p><br />Or maybe it is a publicity stunt by the Everly Brothers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabt0QXJ_GY</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. 
</p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
</p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div><p>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. </p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
</p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div><p>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. </p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
</p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div><p>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. </p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
</p><p>I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go<em> s</em><em>omewhere</em>, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?</p><p>yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My SUSYGUTS are better than your SUSYGUTS. I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I still think, conjecture notwithstanding, that electrical potentials in that range would have major and visible effects on all nearby surrounding matter. After all, that potential has to go somewhere, and it would have been seen (effects imaged). It would be quite visible, would it not?yes, I am am narrowly focussing on Mike's claims here. Let's invalidate (or validate) each and every option as we go along, rather than throw it all out in one great big stew of possibilities. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I don't know if large-scale (spatially) electric fields are necessary for this to happen. The reference was to annihilation of supersymmetric particles that produce these high-energy electrons. I don't know enough about the hypothesized nature of these particles to understand what is going on, but it from the terminology it sounds to me as though the electrons are supposed to result from some sort of collision, interaction and scattering of the particles, rather like electron-positron annihilation, but releasing something other than just photons. I could be totally wrong on this point. But if that is what is going on, I don't have any idea what the effect on other matter would be, if any.</p><p>I don't know how to validate or invalidate this scenario. I think we would need a very deep specialist. You are in the Boston area. Does Frank Wilczek happen to live next door ? </p><p>If, on the other hand you are talking about claims of excess electrons, whatever they are, being accelerated by existing electric fields rather than some sort of annihilation of SUSY particles, in some sort of process suggested by Alfven, then we need to have those claims and the proposed mechanism described in detail and in conformance with the usual set of principles of classical electrodyamics. I have no idea what he is talking about in this regard. But I would not want to even entertain the question unless it has some relevance to the original topic of the thread, and I have no confidence that such relevance exists. I don't think it has anything to do with dark matter and the quoted article only serves as a back door entree to EU through the veil of a discussion of dark matter. If that is the real topic then I personally think that a new thread in The Unexplained should be opened for the purpose of discussing it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </DIV></p><p>?!?!?!?</p><p>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter". Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter". It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. </DIV></p><p>That depends on whether you're a skeptic or a "believer" evidently. He doesn't seem very open minded toward "skepticism" in a general sense. Even you've been a bit more "reasonable' in that respect. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. </DIV></p><p>It is utterly absurd for you two to be acusssing me of "knowing" what "dark matter" is. I only know what exists in nature, and I know that our technology and our beliefs about the universe are still quite primitive in many respects. That's all I profess to know. I also profess to know that skeptical science is typically a very safe and effective way of practicing "science". I know the difference between controlled emprical testing and "faith". That's all I profess to "know". </p><p>It's the industry of astronomy that professes to "know" the mass of a distant galaxy based upon it's "brightness". it's your industry that professes to "know" that more mass is required to make that lensing data work, and it's your industry that claims to "know" that non baryonic matter exists. Give me a break. </p><p>I know the difference between emprical science and faith. It is "scientific fact' that more matter might be useful in helping us to explain distant lensing data and distant rotational patterns of galaxies. It is "dogma" that "dark matter" is composed of non baryonic forms of matter with "properties" galore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</p><p>I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper. They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort. </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'>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </DIV></p><p>?!?!?!?</p><p>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter". Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter". It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. </DIV></p><p>That depends on whether you're a skeptic or a "believer" evidently. He doesn't seem very open minded toward "skepticism" in a general sense. Even you've been a bit more "reasonable' in that respect. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. </DIV></p><p>It is utterly absurd for you two to be acusssing me of "knowing" what "dark matter" is. I only know what exists in nature, and I know that our technology and our beliefs about the universe are still quite primitive in many respects. That's all I profess to know. I also profess to know that skeptical science is typically a very safe and effective way of practicing "science". I know the difference between controlled emprical testing and "faith". That's all I profess to "know". </p><p>It's the industry of astronomy that professes to "know" the mass of a distant galaxy based upon it's "brightness". it's your industry that professes to "know" that more mass is required to make that lensing data work, and it's your industry that claims to "know" that non baryonic matter exists. Give me a break. </p><p>I know the difference between emprical science and faith. It is "scientific fact' that more matter might be useful in helping us to explain distant lensing data and distant rotational patterns of galaxies. It is "dogma" that "dark matter" is composed of non baryonic forms of matter with "properties" galore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</p><p>I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper. They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort. </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'>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </DIV></p><p>?!?!?!?</p><p>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter". Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter". It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. </DIV></p><p>That depends on whether you're a skeptic or a "believer" evidently. He doesn't seem very open minded toward "skepticism" in a general sense. Even you've been a bit more "reasonable' in that respect. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. </DIV></p><p>It is utterly absurd for you two to be acusssing me of "knowing" what "dark matter" is. I only know what exists in nature, and I know that our technology and our beliefs about the universe are still quite primitive in many respects. That's all I profess to know. I also profess to know that skeptical science is typically a very safe and effective way of practicing "science". I know the difference between controlled emprical testing and "faith". That's all I profess to "know". </p><p>It's the industry of astronomy that professes to "know" the mass of a distant galaxy based upon it's "brightness". it's your industry that professes to "know" that more mass is required to make that lensing data work, and it's your industry that claims to "know" that non baryonic matter exists. Give me a break. </p><p>I know the difference between emprical science and faith. It is "scientific fact' that more matter might be useful in helping us to explain distant lensing data and distant rotational patterns of galaxies. It is "dogma" that "dark matter" is composed of non baryonic forms of matter with "properties" galore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</p><p>I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper. They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort. </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'>So apparently your entire objective was merely to present a misinterpretation of the facts of the article as a ruse to inject your EU notions into yet another element of physics. </DIV></p><p>?!?!?!?</p><p>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter". Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter". It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne is not only being fair and open minded, he is going out of his way to be fair and open minded. </DIV></p><p>That depends on whether you're a skeptic or a "believer" evidently. He doesn't seem very open minded toward "skepticism" in a general sense. Even you've been a bit more "reasonable' in that respect. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has stated quite clearly that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet with the possible exception of you, does not know what dark matter is. </DIV></p><p>It is utterly absurd for you two to be acusssing me of "knowing" what "dark matter" is. I only know what exists in nature, and I know that our technology and our beliefs about the universe are still quite primitive in many respects. That's all I profess to know. I also profess to know that skeptical science is typically a very safe and effective way of practicing "science". I know the difference between controlled emprical testing and "faith". That's all I profess to "know". </p><p>It's the industry of astronomy that professes to "know" the mass of a distant galaxy based upon it's "brightness". it's your industry that professes to "know" that more mass is required to make that lensing data work, and it's your industry that claims to "know" that non baryonic matter exists. Give me a break. </p><p>I know the difference between emprical science and faith. It is "scientific fact' that more matter might be useful in helping us to explain distant lensing data and distant rotational patterns of galaxies. It is "dogma" that "dark matter" is composed of non baryonic forms of matter with "properties" galore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it too much to ask that in a forum dedicated to hard science that discussion of the various approaches to a real open problem in physics might be conducted without an attempt to derail the discussion towards pseudoscience and hijack yet another thread ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</p><p>I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper. They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort. </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
-
What time is the NASA Parker Solar Probe's closest sun flyby ever on Christmas Eve?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram