Dark Matter...WTH?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.You just bash averybody randomly. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>GEAUX Tigers !</p><p><br /><img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:O1WTUpWUazgJ::http://www.louisianagreetings.com/Images/Notecard%2520Details/GNC_6L.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="85" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>To the young whippesnapper in Gator land -- OK I admit, the boys are having a bad year.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers...Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers...Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers...Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers...Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>How many papers on the "properties" of dark matter would like me to cite for you?</p><p>Come on.&nbsp; It is certainly not *only* press releases where we find these utterly unsumbstanciated SUGGESTIONS.&nbsp; They don't know where the electrons came from.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>All that "speculation" about their source was utterly unrelated to the observation and it is unsubstanciated by the observation.&nbsp; If one keeps saying the same thing over and over again in paper after press conference, people start to "believe" that 'dark matter" is now capable of emitting particles and photons at various energy states.&nbsp; They then "observe" such things in space and see this as some sort of "evidence" that "dark matter did it".&nbsp; I've watched this happen with inflation, dark energy, and now "dark matter".&nbsp; There are a ton of "properties" now being assigned to the idea that are then used to support the idea in following papers.&nbsp; For instance, Guth gave inflation a "property" of homgeneous distribution of matter and another "property" of retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Neither of these things were empirically demonstrated.&nbsp; He then used the fact that matter was relatatively homogenously distributed as "evidence" that inflation did it.&nbsp; Dark matter is now being given "properties" that have never been demonstrated either.&nbsp; Future papers may come along now and "predict" high energy electrons using a made up "property" of dark matter, and then this will be used to support a dark mattter theory. That's how this indusry seems to work.&nbsp; As long as you assign enough "properties" to a non emprically demonstrated force or particle, it's possible to get it to do anything.</p><p>Wayne seems to think it might be possible to see emissions from "dark matter".&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What evidence does he have that any form of "dark matter" is non baryonic in nature or anything other than ordinary matter we didn't correctly "guestimate" with our original estimation of a galaxy based on our current methods of determining the mass of distant galaxies?&nbsp; I'll tell you why he thinks that way. He keeps hearing over and over again about the "properties" of "dark matter", like it's "annihilation" properties of emissions.&nbsp;&nbsp; As long as he keeps hearing this over and over again, he starts to believe it's possible.&nbsp; The problem is that these "properties" are unevidenced, undemonstrated and they cannot be duplicated in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; There is no new form of "matter" that we know of that has any sort of "emission" that we might look for with Swift or any other instrument. Even beleiving that DM emits gamma rays or high energy electrons give one the impression they might 'observe" dark matter.&nbsp; Show me that exotic forms of matter exist in emprical experimentation and show me the properties of this matter in a controlled experiment and *THEN* go looking for it in space.&nbsp; If the first part isn't done, pointing at the sky and claiming "theory x did it" demonstrates absolutely nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Those electrons are not caused by any exotic forms of matter.&nbsp; Perriod.&nbsp; We know of no new forms of matter that emit them.&nbsp; Likewise we have no evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; It's purely an ad hoc "property" that's been arbitrarily assinged to something that does exist for the purposes of then looking for it in space.&nbsp; It's a backwards way of doing "science". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>How many papers on the "properties" of dark matter would like me to cite for you?</p><p>Come on.&nbsp; It is certainly not *only* press releases where we find these utterly unsumbstanciated SUGGESTIONS.&nbsp; They don't know where the electrons came from.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>All that "speculation" about their source was utterly unrelated to the observation and it is unsubstanciated by the observation.&nbsp; If one keeps saying the same thing over and over again in paper after press conference, people start to "believe" that 'dark matter" is now capable of emitting particles and photons at various energy states.&nbsp; They then "observe" such things in space and see this as some sort of "evidence" that "dark matter did it".&nbsp; I've watched this happen with inflation, dark energy, and now "dark matter".&nbsp; There are a ton of "properties" now being assigned to the idea that are then used to support the idea in following papers.&nbsp; For instance, Guth gave inflation a "property" of homgeneous distribution of matter and another "property" of retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Neither of these things were empirically demonstrated.&nbsp; He then used the fact that matter was relatatively homogenously distributed as "evidence" that inflation did it.&nbsp; Dark matter is now being given "properties" that have never been demonstrated either.&nbsp; Future papers may come along now and "predict" high energy electrons using a made up "property" of dark matter, and then this will be used to support a dark mattter theory. That's how this indusry seems to work.&nbsp; As long as you assign enough "properties" to a non emprically demonstrated force or particle, it's possible to get it to do anything.</p><p>Wayne seems to think it might be possible to see emissions from "dark matter".&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What evidence does he have that any form of "dark matter" is non baryonic in nature or anything other than ordinary matter we didn't correctly "guestimate" with our original estimation of a galaxy based on our current methods of determining the mass of distant galaxies?&nbsp; I'll tell you why he thinks that way. He keeps hearing over and over again about the "properties" of "dark matter", like it's "annihilation" properties of emissions.&nbsp;&nbsp; As long as he keeps hearing this over and over again, he starts to believe it's possible.&nbsp; The problem is that these "properties" are unevidenced, undemonstrated and they cannot be duplicated in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; There is no new form of "matter" that we know of that has any sort of "emission" that we might look for with Swift or any other instrument. Even beleiving that DM emits gamma rays or high energy electrons give one the impression they might 'observe" dark matter.&nbsp; Show me that exotic forms of matter exist in emprical experimentation and show me the properties of this matter in a controlled experiment and *THEN* go looking for it in space.&nbsp; If the first part isn't done, pointing at the sky and claiming "theory x did it" demonstrates absolutely nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Those electrons are not caused by any exotic forms of matter.&nbsp; Perriod.&nbsp; We know of no new forms of matter that emit them.&nbsp; Likewise we have no evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; It's purely an ad hoc "property" that's been arbitrarily assinged to something that does exist for the purposes of then looking for it in space.&nbsp; It's a backwards way of doing "science". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>How many papers on the "properties" of dark matter would like me to cite for you?</p><p>Come on.&nbsp; It is certainly not *only* press releases where we find these utterly unsumbstanciated SUGGESTIONS.&nbsp; They don't know where the electrons came from.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>All that "speculation" about their source was utterly unrelated to the observation and it is unsubstanciated by the observation.&nbsp; If one keeps saying the same thing over and over again in paper after press conference, people start to "believe" that 'dark matter" is now capable of emitting particles and photons at various energy states.&nbsp; They then "observe" such things in space and see this as some sort of "evidence" that "dark matter did it".&nbsp; I've watched this happen with inflation, dark energy, and now "dark matter".&nbsp; There are a ton of "properties" now being assigned to the idea that are then used to support the idea in following papers.&nbsp; For instance, Guth gave inflation a "property" of homgeneous distribution of matter and another "property" of retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Neither of these things were empirically demonstrated.&nbsp; He then used the fact that matter was relatatively homogenously distributed as "evidence" that inflation did it.&nbsp; Dark matter is now being given "properties" that have never been demonstrated either.&nbsp; Future papers may come along now and "predict" high energy electrons using a made up "property" of dark matter, and then this will be used to support a dark mattter theory. That's how this indusry seems to work.&nbsp; As long as you assign enough "properties" to a non emprically demonstrated force or particle, it's possible to get it to do anything.</p><p>Wayne seems to think it might be possible to see emissions from "dark matter".&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What evidence does he have that any form of "dark matter" is non baryonic in nature or anything other than ordinary matter we didn't correctly "guestimate" with our original estimation of a galaxy based on our current methods of determining the mass of distant galaxies?&nbsp; I'll tell you why he thinks that way. He keeps hearing over and over again about the "properties" of "dark matter", like it's "annihilation" properties of emissions.&nbsp;&nbsp; As long as he keeps hearing this over and over again, he starts to believe it's possible.&nbsp; The problem is that these "properties" are unevidenced, undemonstrated and they cannot be duplicated in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; There is no new form of "matter" that we know of that has any sort of "emission" that we might look for with Swift or any other instrument. Even beleiving that DM emits gamma rays or high energy electrons give one the impression they might 'observe" dark matter.&nbsp; Show me that exotic forms of matter exist in emprical experimentation and show me the properties of this matter in a controlled experiment and *THEN* go looking for it in space.&nbsp; If the first part isn't done, pointing at the sky and claiming "theory x did it" demonstrates absolutely nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Those electrons are not caused by any exotic forms of matter.&nbsp; Perriod.&nbsp; We know of no new forms of matter that emit them.&nbsp; Likewise we have no evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; It's purely an ad hoc "property" that's been arbitrarily assinged to something that does exist for the purposes of then looking for it in space.&nbsp; It's a backwards way of doing "science". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>How many papers on the "properties" of dark matter would like me to cite for you?</p><p>Come on.&nbsp; It is certainly not *only* press releases where we find these utterly unsumbstanciated SUGGESTIONS.&nbsp; They don't know where the electrons came from.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>All that "speculation" about their source was utterly unrelated to the observation and it is unsubstanciated by the observation.&nbsp; If one keeps saying the same thing over and over again in paper after press conference, people start to "believe" that 'dark matter" is now capable of emitting particles and photons at various energy states.&nbsp; They then "observe" such things in space and see this as some sort of "evidence" that "dark matter did it".&nbsp; I've watched this happen with inflation, dark energy, and now "dark matter".&nbsp; There are a ton of "properties" now being assigned to the idea that are then used to support the idea in following papers.&nbsp; For instance, Guth gave inflation a "property" of homgeneous distribution of matter and another "property" of retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Neither of these things were empirically demonstrated.&nbsp; He then used the fact that matter was relatatively homogenously distributed as "evidence" that inflation did it.&nbsp; Dark matter is now being given "properties" that have never been demonstrated either.&nbsp; Future papers may come along now and "predict" high energy electrons using a made up "property" of dark matter, and then this will be used to support a dark mattter theory. That's how this indusry seems to work.&nbsp; As long as you assign enough "properties" to a non emprically demonstrated force or particle, it's possible to get it to do anything.</p><p>Wayne seems to think it might be possible to see emissions from "dark matter".&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What evidence does he have that any form of "dark matter" is non baryonic in nature or anything other than ordinary matter we didn't correctly "guestimate" with our original estimation of a galaxy based on our current methods of determining the mass of distant galaxies?&nbsp; I'll tell you why he thinks that way. He keeps hearing over and over again about the "properties" of "dark matter", like it's "annihilation" properties of emissions.&nbsp;&nbsp; As long as he keeps hearing this over and over again, he starts to believe it's possible.&nbsp; The problem is that these "properties" are unevidenced, undemonstrated and they cannot be duplicated in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; There is no new form of "matter" that we know of that has any sort of "emission" that we might look for with Swift or any other instrument. Even beleiving that DM emits gamma rays or high energy electrons give one the impression they might 'observe" dark matter.&nbsp; Show me that exotic forms of matter exist in emprical experimentation and show me the properties of this matter in a controlled experiment and *THEN* go looking for it in space.&nbsp; If the first part isn't done, pointing at the sky and claiming "theory x did it" demonstrates absolutely nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Those electrons are not caused by any exotic forms of matter.&nbsp; Perriod.&nbsp; We know of no new forms of matter that emit them.&nbsp; Likewise we have no evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; It's purely an ad hoc "property" that's been arbitrarily assinged to something that does exist for the purposes of then looking for it in space.&nbsp; It's a backwards way of doing "science". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you mean the ones with all that MATH ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.You just bash averybody randomly. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</DIV></p><p>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. </p><p>The only reason that you "believe" that DM might emit gamma rays that you might observe with SWIFT is because you've heard that "property" repeated now a number of times by a number of astronomers, none of whom have a single shred of empirical evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; I'm sure now that someone will eventually "quantify" a paper that links some distant observation of gamma rays to "dark matter" and viola, a new mathematical mythos is born.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As long as you place no scientific importance on the need to verify "properites" being assigned to hypothetical entities in qualified tests of concept, any sort of "quantification" is possible.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. </p><p>The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe".&nbsp; The problem is that such a "belief" is not based upon empirically gathered support from controlled experimentation, but rather it is a pure act of faith on your part based upon "group think".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.You just bash averybody randomly. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</DIV></p><p>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. </p><p>The only reason that you "believe" that DM might emit gamma rays that you might observe with SWIFT is because you've heard that "property" repeated now a number of times by a number of astronomers, none of whom have a single shred of empirical evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; I'm sure now that someone will eventually "quantify" a paper that links some distant observation of gamma rays to "dark matter" and viola, a new mathematical mythos is born.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As long as you place no scientific importance on the need to verify "properites" being assigned to hypothetical entities in qualified tests of concept, any sort of "quantification" is possible.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. </p><p>The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe".&nbsp; The problem is that such a "belief" is not based upon empirically gathered support from controlled experimentation, but rather it is a pure act of faith on your part based upon "group think".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.You just bash averybody randomly. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</DIV></p><p>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. </p><p>The only reason that you "believe" that DM might emit gamma rays that you might observe with SWIFT is because you've heard that "property" repeated now a number of times by a number of astronomers, none of whom have a single shred of empirical evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; I'm sure now that someone will eventually "quantify" a paper that links some distant observation of gamma rays to "dark matter" and viola, a new mathematical mythos is born.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As long as you place no scientific importance on the need to verify "properites" being assigned to hypothetical entities in qualified tests of concept, any sort of "quantification" is possible.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. </p><p>The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe".&nbsp; The problem is that such a "belief" is not based upon empirically gathered support from controlled experimentation, but rather it is a pure act of faith on your part based upon "group think".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.You just bash averybody randomly. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</DIV></p><p>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. </p><p>The only reason that you "believe" that DM might emit gamma rays that you might observe with SWIFT is because you've heard that "property" repeated now a number of times by a number of astronomers, none of whom have a single shred of empirical evidence that DM emits gamma rays.&nbsp; I'm sure now that someone will eventually "quantify" a paper that links some distant observation of gamma rays to "dark matter" and viola, a new mathematical mythos is born.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As long as you place no scientific importance on the need to verify "properites" being assigned to hypothetical entities in qualified tests of concept, any sort of "quantification" is possible.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. </p><p>The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe".&nbsp; The problem is that such a "belief" is not based upon empirically gathered support from controlled experimentation, but rather it is a pure act of faith on your part based upon "group think".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</p><p>Here is but one example of mathematics directed towards qualitative issues.&nbsp; It was chosen primarily for the blatant reference to qualitative theory and because the book is a classic.&nbsp; There are far more subtle and more relevant examples in particle physics, but perhaps this is overt enough to get your attention.&nbsp; </p><p><img class="cvr" src="http://images.alibris.com/isbn/9780486659541.gif" border="0" alt="Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations" height="187" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</p><p>Here is but one example of mathematics directed towards qualitative issues.&nbsp; It was chosen primarily for the blatant reference to qualitative theory and because the book is a classic.&nbsp; There are far more subtle and more relevant examples in particle physics, but perhaps this is overt enough to get your attention.&nbsp; </p><p><img class="cvr" src="http://images.alibris.com/isbn/9780486659541.gif" border="0" alt="Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations" height="187" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</p><p>Here is but one example of mathematics directed towards qualitative issues.&nbsp; It was chosen primarily for the blatant reference to qualitative theory and because the book is a classic.&nbsp; There are far more subtle and more relevant examples in particle physics, but perhaps this is overt enough to get your attention.&nbsp; </p><p><img class="cvr" src="http://images.alibris.com/isbn/9780486659541.gif" border="0" alt="Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations" height="187" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean that if you pack enough math into the paper about how DM relreases high energy electrons, somehow that makes the theory correct?&nbsp; Give me a break. This is about lack of *QUALIFICATION* not a lack of *QUANTIFICATION*.&nbsp; No amount of quantification is going to overcome a complete lack of qualification of a "property" being assigned to "dark matter"". That's the whole problem with this industry IMO. They have somehow decided that quantification is the only thing that science is about to the exclusion of the need to "qualify" ideas in controlled experimentation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</p><p>Here is but one example of mathematics directed towards qualitative issues.&nbsp; It was chosen primarily for the blatant reference to qualitative theory and because the book is a classic.&nbsp; There are far more subtle and more relevant examples in particle physics, but perhaps this is overt enough to get your attention.&nbsp; </p><p><img class="cvr" src="http://images.alibris.com/isbn/9780486659541.gif" border="0" alt="Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations" height="187" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</DIV></p><p>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO.&nbsp; You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept.&nbsp; That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos.&nbsp; Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". </p><p>You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</DIV></p><p>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO.&nbsp; You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept.&nbsp; That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos.&nbsp; Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". </p><p>You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</DIV></p><p>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO.&nbsp; You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept.&nbsp; That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos.&nbsp; Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". </p><p>You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As usual you fail to understand the role of mathematics in physics or even what mathematics actually is.&nbsp; Mathematical models have the capability to provide qualitative information as to the basic nature of phenomena as well as the ability to handle questions of magnitude (quantification).&nbsp; Your lack of mathematical sophistication is truly hindering your understanding of science.</DIV></p><p>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO.&nbsp; You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept.&nbsp; That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos.&nbsp; Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". </p><p>You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. </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>