<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. 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. 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. 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. No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe". 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". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. </p><p><img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:_xoTDQFj94ob_M:http://www.yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Sam-Side.jpg" alt="" width="78" height="86" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. 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. 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. 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. No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe". 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". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. </p><p><img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:_xoTDQFj94ob_M:http://www.yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Sam-Side.jpg" alt="" width="78" height="86" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. 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. 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. 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. No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe". 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". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. </p><p><img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:_xoTDQFj94ob_M:http://www.yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Sam-Side.jpg" alt="" width="78" height="86" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I borrowed one of your quotes from a previous post. 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. 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. 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. No amount of quantification is going to overcome the fact that these concept have never been "qualified", or emprically demonstrated. The problem here Wayne is that if you are told something enough times, it's easier and easier to "believe". 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". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. </p><p><img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:_xoTDQFj94ob_M:http://www.yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Sam-Side.jpg" alt="" width="78" height="86" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO. You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept. That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos. Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've never seen a star created in a laboratory, yet we know it happens. Same with galaxies, supernovae, planet formation, and practically everything in astronomy/astrophysics. Why is it that you only require such empirical evidence for any observation or theory that contains the word "electron" or "electricity" or "current"? It is because you have a personal agenda. </p><p>Pointing at these electrons in the sky and saying "EU did it" is no more justified than claiming that dark matter "did" it. Do you really think saying "oh, that is just a glimpse of the cosmic wire plugged into our solid surface sun" is more reasonable than suggesting a well-known theory MIGHT be responsible? As I said, suggesting is not endorsing. The scientific process is someone presents an observation they do not understand, suggest possible avenues for figuring out what happened and why, and either they or someone else follows up on it with further research. IF dark matter behaves the way we believe it to, then this observation might eventually support the idea. Nobody is saying it does, just that it's worth looking into. You have absolutely no idea how science works and cling to archaic standards. Your repeated attempts at turning every thread into an EU thread are futile. Unlike your argument about what we hear about dark matter, repeating the EU doctrine over and over will not convince us or anyone that it is true. </p><p>PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO. You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept. That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos. Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've never seen a star created in a laboratory, yet we know it happens. Same with galaxies, supernovae, planet formation, and practically everything in astronomy/astrophysics. Why is it that you only require such empirical evidence for any observation or theory that contains the word "electron" or "electricity" or "current"? It is because you have a personal agenda. </p><p>Pointing at these electrons in the sky and saying "EU did it" is no more justified than claiming that dark matter "did" it. Do you really think saying "oh, that is just a glimpse of the cosmic wire plugged into our solid surface sun" is more reasonable than suggesting a well-known theory MIGHT be responsible? As I said, suggesting is not endorsing. The scientific process is someone presents an observation they do not understand, suggest possible avenues for figuring out what happened and why, and either they or someone else follows up on it with further research. IF dark matter behaves the way we believe it to, then this observation might eventually support the idea. Nobody is saying it does, just that it's worth looking into. You have absolutely no idea how science works and cling to archaic standards. Your repeated attempts at turning every thread into an EU thread are futile. Unlike your argument about what we hear about dark matter, repeating the EU doctrine over and over will not convince us or anyone that it is true. </p><p>PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO. You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept. That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos. Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've never seen a star created in a laboratory, yet we know it happens. Same with galaxies, supernovae, planet formation, and practically everything in astronomy/astrophysics. Why is it that you only require such empirical evidence for any observation or theory that contains the word "electron" or "electricity" or "current"? It is because you have a personal agenda. </p><p>Pointing at these electrons in the sky and saying "EU did it" is no more justified than claiming that dark matter "did" it. Do you really think saying "oh, that is just a glimpse of the cosmic wire plugged into our solid surface sun" is more reasonable than suggesting a well-known theory MIGHT be responsible? As I said, suggesting is not endorsing. The scientific process is someone presents an observation they do not understand, suggest possible avenues for figuring out what happened and why, and either they or someone else follows up on it with further research. IF dark matter behaves the way we believe it to, then this observation might eventually support the idea. Nobody is saying it does, just that it's worth looking into. You have absolutely no idea how science works and cling to archaic standards. Your repeated attempts at turning every thread into an EU thread are futile. Unlike your argument about what we hear about dark matter, repeating the EU doctrine over and over will not convince us or anyone that it is true. </p><p>PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your lack of emrpical sophistication has blinded you IMO. You've put so much emphasis on the "quantification" part that you completely forgot to "qualify" the ideas with an empiriical test of concept. That isn't science DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos. Only if the idea is "qualified" as well as "quantified" can you truly call it "science". You can "quantify" non bayronic forms of DM all you like, but lets see you produce some in controlled scientific test. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've never seen a star created in a laboratory, yet we know it happens. Same with galaxies, supernovae, planet formation, and practically everything in astronomy/astrophysics. Why is it that you only require such empirical evidence for any observation or theory that contains the word "electron" or "electricity" or "current"? It is because you have a personal agenda. </p><p>Pointing at these electrons in the sky and saying "EU did it" is no more justified than claiming that dark matter "did" it. Do you really think saying "oh, that is just a glimpse of the cosmic wire plugged into our solid surface sun" is more reasonable than suggesting a well-known theory MIGHT be responsible? As I said, suggesting is not endorsing. The scientific process is someone presents an observation they do not understand, suggest possible avenues for figuring out what happened and why, and either they or someone else follows up on it with further research. IF dark matter behaves the way we believe it to, then this observation might eventually support the idea. Nobody is saying it does, just that it's worth looking into. You have absolutely no idea how science works and cling to archaic standards. Your repeated attempts at turning every thread into an EU thread are futile. Unlike your argument about what we hear about dark matter, repeating the EU doctrine over and over will not convince us or anyone that it is true. </p><p>PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>At least you are keeping them in the right conference.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>At least you are keeping them in the right conference.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>At least you are keeping them in the right conference.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... PS DrRocket, I do wish the Tigers had a better year, just to make our crushing of them look better. I am looking forward to the three upcoming awards coming to Gainesville(Heisman, SEC championship, BCS championship) <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>At least you are keeping them in the right conference.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. </p><p>It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. </p><p>Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.</p><p>The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. </p><p> If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.</p><p>Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".</p><p>In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. </p><p>They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".</p><p>*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.</p><p>This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".</p><p>Now let's look at how it should not be done.</p><p>Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.</p><p>Let's apply this now to dark matter. </p><p>There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.</p><p>Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.</p><p>I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".</p><p>On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.</p><p>I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.</p><p>The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.</p><p>It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be.</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'>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. </p><p>It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. </p><p>Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.</p><p>The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. </p><p> If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.</p><p>Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".</p><p>In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. </p><p>They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".</p><p>*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.</p><p>This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".</p><p>Now let's look at how it should not be done.</p><p>Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.</p><p>Let's apply this now to dark matter. </p><p>There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.</p><p>Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.</p><p>I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".</p><p>On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.</p><p>I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.</p><p>The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.</p><p>It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be.</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'>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. </p><p>It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. </p><p>Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.</p><p>The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. </p><p> If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.</p><p>Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".</p><p>In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. </p><p>They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".</p><p>*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.</p><p>This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".</p><p>Now let's look at how it should not be done.</p><p>Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.</p><p>Let's apply this now to dark matter. </p><p>There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.</p><p>Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.</p><p>I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".</p><p>On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.</p><p>I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.</p><p>The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.</p><p>It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be.</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'>OK I get it. Another uninformed and misguided attack on the scientific establishment and the scientific method in general. Another thread on the way to a hijacking. These unfounded attacks on the entire community of astrophysicists are just ridiculous. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. </p><p>It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. </p><p>Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.</p><p>The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. </p><p> If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.</p><p>Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".</p><p>In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. </p><p>They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".</p><p>*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.</p><p>This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".</p><p>Now let's look at how it should not be done.</p><p>Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.</p><p>Let's apply this now to dark matter. </p><p>There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.</p><p>Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.</p><p>I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".</p><p>On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.</p><p>I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.</p><p>The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.</p><p>It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be.</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'>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".Now let's look at how it should not be done.Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.Let's apply this now to dark matter. There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter. It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</p><p>You don't get mathematics. You don't get theory, You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</p><p>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.</p><p>This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track.</p><p><br />http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/#<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/3/b3df117a-8f18-4b3f-93f8-fc770b90c011.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".Now let's look at how it should not be done.Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.Let's apply this now to dark matter. There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter. It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</p><p>You don't get mathematics. You don't get theory, You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</p><p>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.</p><p>This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track.</p><p><br />http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/#<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/3/b3df117a-8f18-4b3f-93f8-fc770b90c011.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".Now let's look at how it should not be done.Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.Let's apply this now to dark matter. There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter. It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</p><p>You don't get mathematics. You don't get theory, You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</p><p>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.</p><p>This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track.</p><p><br />http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/#<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/3/b3df117a-8f18-4b3f-93f8-fc770b90c011.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, obviously you don't "get it" at all. There is no sceintific substitute for controlled emprical experimentation. It is important that theories pass a "qualification" process in the emprical scientific sense. All the math in the world won't take the place of a controlled scientific test. Everying has it's place in science, but physical science isn't exclusively about about math. It's possible to assign an infinite number of "properties' to a hypothetical entity, in this case "dark matter". One individual might be abslutely certain that they emit photons at a particular wavelength. Another individual might believe they emit high energy electrons. Another might believe they emit protons and neutrons, and neutrinos. An infinate number of options remain "possible" with any given hypothetic entity. No amount of math is going to tell us anything about the world around us until and unless we can apply it in some useful way to our lives, and to our universe. Wayne seems to believe that SWIFT might provide further "evidence" of gamma ray emissions related to "dark matter". That is not scientifically possible.The only way to demonstrate that "dark matter" emits gamma rays is to empirically demonstrate this claim in a controlled test of concept. No amount of pointing to distant events, complete with math, will take the place of an emprical test of concept. If we simply "skip" the empirical test of concept, then *any* "property" we might assign to *any* hypothetical entity can now be "verified" by an uncontrolled test. If person X claims invisibile entities did it, and whips up a little math, they can then point at an uncontrolled observation in space and claim that this particular emission is "evidence" to support their hypothetical entity.Let's start with some "good astronomy" for awhile and look at how science works "correctly".In "controlled" experiments involving particle decay reactions of *known* physical particles, it was "observed" that there was a "missing energy/mass" problem in these decay processes. A small, but noticeable amount of energy could not be accounted for in this *controlled* empirical experiments". Folks then sat down with this empircially 'qualified" idea used some mathematical formulas to figure out what particular physical chemicals and bonds that neutrinos might have some emprical effect on in "controlled" experiments. They built expensive equipment. They used sophisticed mathematical models to calculate the "reactions" they might hope to observe in their experiments. They built emprical "experiments" to test their theories. They used "control mechanisms" to verify that their mathematical models were accurate, and correctly "predicted" the amount of "reactions" they observed in their equipment. They could turn on and off the presumed "source" of these neutrino emissions, and then observe the affect on their "experiments". In this way, they created real "control mechanisms", real "experiments", real scientific "qualification" of their theories from emprical experiments. Nothing was left to chance, and everything was "verified" with "controlled experimentation".*THEN* and only then, did they attempt to look at distant objects like the sun to see if they might observe these same types of emissions.This is "by the book" science, by anyone's standards. There's nothing but "great science" in this branch of "astronomy".Now let's look at how it should not be done.Someone has a "belief" that some hypothetical entity, and entity that is not derived from "controlled experimentation" of known decay reactions of known and quantified particles as in the case of the neutrino, but rather it is based upon upon "optimisticl thinking' about how he might resolve some distant "mystery" in space.Let's apply this now to dark matter. There's no empirical experiment to verify that gamma rays are related to the item in question. There's no emprical experiment to verify that very high energy electrons are related to the item in question either. There is no known paritcle decay reactions or particle interaction process that has not been accounted for by particle physics by *known* forms of matter. It's so precise, it's been applied to "neutrinos", an object with so little mass, we still struggle to understand it's precise energy state(s). It's *very* precise science.Now keep in mind that SUSY theory may have a mathematical basis, but there is no emprical experiment to verify it's existence, let alone any of it's "properties" like longevity for instance. Until that is done, there is really no logical reason to "assume" that they exist or have any affect on distant observations in space.I'm a great fan of "good astronomy". In fact I'm in awe of the folks that can do that stuff for a living. It's great science and I'm a huge fan of that kind of real emprical "science".On the other hand, when folks start "piling on" the hypothetical "properties" of a hypothetical entitiy, devoid of emrpical justification, and empirical "QUALIFICATION", I start to become "skeptical" of this brand of astronomy.I respect the fact that NASA puts men in space, lands objects on distant planets and moons, and does what it does. On the other hand I'm "bothered" by the "bad science" that sometimes appears on it's websites. It's not the interviewers fault that NASA posts this stuff on their website.The "danger" here to emprical science is obvious IMO. Whereas neutrino astronomers have done things by the book, some dark matter ideas are simply 'optimistic thinking". If however you hear that stuff enough times, by enough "trusted" websites and sources and "scientists", you start to believe that "dark matter" has "properties" that we might now observe in distant events. Some might even turn right around and attempt to justify the idea based on an uncontrolled distant observation.It's extremely hard to be in my position. On one hand I love astronomy. On the other hand, I'm not able to simply turn of my "skepticism" about ideas that have never been emprically "qualified" in controlled experiments no matter how well "quantified" the idea might be. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter. It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</p><p>You don't get mathematics. You don't get theory, You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</p><p>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.</p><p>This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track.</p><p><br />http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/#<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/3/b3df117a-8f18-4b3f-93f8-fc770b90c011.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. </DIV></p><p>OMG. Nothing has been "hijacked". All of these issues are directly related to "dark matter" theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter.</DIV></p><p>What "responsible scientific research" shows us that dark matter emits gamma rays? Which "responsible scientific research" demonstratees that dark matter emits high energy electrons? These are not "responsible" ideas, they are way out there" sort of "possibilities" at best case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</DIV></p><p>I clearly explained the difference betwee real scientific theories for you like neutrino experiments vs. the kind of stuff being peddle by dark matter proponents. There's no comparison.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get mathematics. </DIV></p><p>This is pure baloney. I just don't "get" the idea of creating a mathematical mythos that is shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get theory, </DIV></p><p>I get theories that related to known forces of nature and known particles related to particle physics theory. I don't "get" the point of making a wild and unsupportable claims about the origin of high energy photons and electrons being related to "dark matter". There is no emprical collelation between "dark matter" and any of the long list of "properties" that are now attributed to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</DIV></p><p>You always go "personal" when you're losing a debate. You're so darn predictable in that way. This isn't about "me". You should be able to EMPRICALLY DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM, regardless of my personal beliefs about the topic at hand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nothing has been "derailed" here in any way. The only "pseudoscience" is suggesting that "dark matter" has all the properties it is now being given. There is no emprical support for the idea that dark matter emits gamma ray any differently than ordinary standard matter. There is no emprical support that new forms of matter exist in nature. There is no evidence from a controlled emprical test to support any of this, which is why these claims are all pseudo-scientific claims.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. You don't like the implication of not being able to demonstrate any of the claims or "properties" being associated with "dark matter", thereofore you take your frustrations out on me.</p><p>One empirical test could end this debate instantly. Since you can't produce one, you attack the messenger. </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'>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. </DIV></p><p>OMG. Nothing has been "hijacked". All of these issues are directly related to "dark matter" theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter.</DIV></p><p>What "responsible scientific research" shows us that dark matter emits gamma rays? Which "responsible scientific research" demonstratees that dark matter emits high energy electrons? These are not "responsible" ideas, they are way out there" sort of "possibilities" at best case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</DIV></p><p>I clearly explained the difference betwee real scientific theories for you like neutrino experiments vs. the kind of stuff being peddle by dark matter proponents. There's no comparison.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get mathematics. </DIV></p><p>This is pure baloney. I just don't "get" the idea of creating a mathematical mythos that is shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get theory, </DIV></p><p>I get theories that related to known forces of nature and known particles related to particle physics theory. I don't "get" the point of making a wild and unsupportable claims about the origin of high energy photons and electrons being related to "dark matter". There is no emprical collelation between "dark matter" and any of the long list of "properties" that are now attributed to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</DIV></p><p>You always go "personal" when you're losing a debate. You're so darn predictable in that way. This isn't about "me". You should be able to EMPRICALLY DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM, regardless of my personal beliefs about the topic at hand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nothing has been "derailed" here in any way. The only "pseudoscience" is suggesting that "dark matter" has all the properties it is now being given. There is no emprical support for the idea that dark matter emits gamma ray any differently than ordinary standard matter. There is no emprical support that new forms of matter exist in nature. There is no evidence from a controlled emprical test to support any of this, which is why these claims are all pseudo-scientific claims.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. You don't like the implication of not being able to demonstrate any of the claims or "properties" being associated with "dark matter", thereofore you take your frustrations out on me.</p><p>One empirical test could end this debate instantly. Since you can't produce one, you attack the messenger. </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'>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. </DIV></p><p>OMG. Nothing has been "hijacked". All of these issues are directly related to "dark matter" theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter.</DIV></p><p>What "responsible scientific research" shows us that dark matter emits gamma rays? Which "responsible scientific research" demonstratees that dark matter emits high energy electrons? These are not "responsible" ideas, they are way out there" sort of "possibilities" at best case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</DIV></p><p>I clearly explained the difference betwee real scientific theories for you like neutrino experiments vs. the kind of stuff being peddle by dark matter proponents. There's no comparison.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get mathematics. </DIV></p><p>This is pure baloney. I just don't "get" the idea of creating a mathematical mythos that is shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get theory, </DIV></p><p>I get theories that related to known forces of nature and known particles related to particle physics theory. I don't "get" the point of making a wild and unsupportable claims about the origin of high energy photons and electrons being related to "dark matter". There is no emprical collelation between "dark matter" and any of the long list of "properties" that are now attributed to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</DIV></p><p>You always go "personal" when you're losing a debate. You're so darn predictable in that way. This isn't about "me". You should be able to EMPRICALLY DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM, regardless of my personal beliefs about the topic at hand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nothing has been "derailed" here in any way. The only "pseudoscience" is suggesting that "dark matter" has all the properties it is now being given. There is no emprical support for the idea that dark matter emits gamma ray any differently than ordinary standard matter. There is no emprical support that new forms of matter exist in nature. There is no evidence from a controlled emprical test to support any of this, which is why these claims are all pseudo-scientific claims.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. You don't like the implication of not being able to demonstrate any of the claims or "properties" being associated with "dark matter", thereofore you take your frustrations out on me.</p><p>One empirical test could end this debate instantly. Since you can't produce one, you attack the messenger. </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'>Yep. The thread has been hijacked. </DIV></p><p>OMG. Nothing has been "hijacked". All of these issues are directly related to "dark matter" theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is no longer about responsible scientific research and the hypothesis of dark matter.</DIV></p><p>What "responsible scientific research" shows us that dark matter emits gamma rays? Which "responsible scientific research" demonstratees that dark matter emits high energy electrons? These are not "responsible" ideas, they are way out there" sort of "possibilities" at best case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It has been twisted toward your personal misconceptions about what science is and how it is and should be practiced by real scientists.</DIV></p><p>I clearly explained the difference betwee real scientific theories for you like neutrino experiments vs. the kind of stuff being peddle by dark matter proponents. There's no comparison.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get mathematics. </DIV></p><p>This is pure baloney. I just don't "get" the idea of creating a mathematical mythos that is shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get theory, </DIV></p><p>I get theories that related to known forces of nature and known particles related to particle physics theory. I don't "get" the point of making a wild and unsupportable claims about the origin of high energy photons and electrons being related to "dark matter". There is no emprical collelation between "dark matter" and any of the long list of "properties" that are now attributed to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get hypothesis, speculation or research. You don't get experiment and observation. You have no concept whatever of the correct meaning of the term "empricism". You just flat don't get it.</DIV></p><p>You always go "personal" when you're losing a debate. You're so darn predictable in that way. This isn't about "me". You should be able to EMPRICALLY DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM, regardless of my personal beliefs about the topic at hand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your only objective is to push your personal agenda. Pseudoscience.This thread has been completely derailed. I'm outa here, unless the mods can put the train back on the track. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nothing has been "derailed" here in any way. The only "pseudoscience" is suggesting that "dark matter" has all the properties it is now being given. There is no emprical support for the idea that dark matter emits gamma ray any differently than ordinary standard matter. There is no emprical support that new forms of matter exist in nature. There is no evidence from a controlled emprical test to support any of this, which is why these claims are all pseudo-scientific claims.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is obvious. You don't like the implication of not being able to demonstrate any of the claims or "properties" being associated with "dark matter", thereofore you take your frustrations out on me.</p><p>One empirical test could end this debate instantly. Since you can't produce one, you attack the messenger. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've never seen a star created in a laboratory, yet we know it happens.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I've seen some interesting laboratory simulations too. 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Same with galaxies, supernovae, planet formation, and practically everything in astronomy/astrophysics. Why is it that you only require such empirical evidence for any observation or theory that contains the word "electron" or "electricity" or "current"?</DIV></p><p>You're missing the point. I apply the emprical method of science to *all* scientific theories, not only the ones that include electrons. Electrons however are not shy around controlled experiments which is why I have not problem with any theory involving the use of eletrons. Whether the theory is right wrong may remain to be seen, but elecctrons are never shy around control mechnisms and real scientific tests. I also have no difficulty with MACHO variations of "dark matter" theory because such theories evoke no new forms of matter or energy. I also apply this mathod to my own industry, and every other branch of "science" that I can think of. There's no favoritism here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is because you have a personal agenda. </DIV></p><p>The only "agenda" I have is the same one you have. I'm looking for "truth", specifically scientific truth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pointing at these electrons in the sky and saying "EU did it" is no more justified than claiming that dark matter "did" it.</DIV></p><p>The only thing I can say about these eletrons thus far is that they are very high energy electrons and high energy electrons are a "prediction" of that particular theory. That does not tells us where they come from. Claiming the originate somewhere is another "specific" claim that requires "specific" emprical support. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you really think saying "oh, that is just a glimpse of the cosmic wire plugged into our solid surface sun" is more reasonable than suggesting a well-known theory MIGHT be responsible?</DIV></p><p>Ya know, it's unfair of you folks to accuse me of hijacking this thread while tossing this "hand granades" into on otherwise pretty well focused conversation on "Dark matter". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As I said, suggesting is not endorsing. The scientific process is someone presents an observation they do not understand, suggest possible avenues for figuring out what happened and why, and either they or someone else follows up on it with further research. </DIV></p><p>So who gets to subjectively decide what is a reasonable avenue for figuring this out? Why is it "ok" to speculate on their source, but it's not "ok" to talk about the fact that another theory "predicts" the presense of high energy electrons? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IF dark matter behaves the way we believe it to, then this observation might eventually support the idea. </DIV></p><p>The only way to demonstrate this point is via controlled experimentation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody is saying it does, just that it's worth looking into.</DIV></p><p>Why is that idea worth "looking into" whereas other idea are not? Who decides what is a "reasonable' line of persuit?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You have absolutely no idea how science works and cling to archaic standards. </DIV></p><p>I know exactly how science is supposed to work, just like the neutrino side of astronomy "works". These are not "archaic standards" they are the "classic" methods of science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your repeated attempts at turning every thread into an EU thread are futile.</DIV></p><p>I am not doing anything of the sort. I have pointed out the difference between theories that can be emprically supported and ones that are based on ad hoc assertions devoid of emprical support. IT has nothing to do with *ANY* particular theory, and this issue would apply to *all* theories, not one, or a few or them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unlike your argument about what we hear about dark matter, repeating the EU doctrine over and over will not convince us or anyone that it is true. </DIV></p><p>This issue is utterly and totally unrelated to any single theory, or any theory I personally put faith in. It's an issue related to the difference between "empirical physics" like we find in the neutrino example vs. "wild guessing" as we see with those claims about "dark matter" emitting gamma rays and high energy electrons.</p><p>There is in fact a serious and important distinction between *any* theory that enjoys emprical scientific support of concept and one that lacks such support. Again, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any specific theory and it's applicable to *ALL* scientific theories. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Same with galaxies, supernovae, planet formation, and practically everything in astronomy/astrophysics. Why is it that you only require such empirical evidence for any observation or theory that contains the word "electron" or "electricity" or "current"?</DIV></p><p>You're missing the point. I apply the emprical method of science to *all* scientific theories, not only the ones that include electrons. Electrons however are not shy around controlled experiments which is why I have not problem with any theory involving the use of eletrons. Whether the theory is right wrong may remain to be seen, but elecctrons are never shy around control mechnisms and real scientific tests. I also have no difficulty with MACHO variations of "dark matter" theory because such theories evoke no new forms of matter or energy. I also apply this mathod to my own industry, and every other branch of "science" that I can think of. There's no favoritism here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is because you have a personal agenda. </DIV></p><p>The only "agenda" I have is the same one you have. I'm looking for "truth", specifically scientific truth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pointing at these electrons in the sky and saying "EU did it" is no more justified than claiming that dark matter "did" it.</DIV></p><p>The only thing I can say about these eletrons thus far is that they are very high energy electrons and high energy electrons are a "prediction" of that particular theory. That does not tells us where they come from. Claiming the originate somewhere is another "specific" claim that requires "specific" emprical support. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you really think saying "oh, that is just a glimpse of the cosmic wire plugged into our solid surface sun" is more reasonable than suggesting a well-known theory MIGHT be responsible?</DIV></p><p>Ya know, it's unfair of you folks to accuse me of hijacking this thread while tossing this "hand granades" into on otherwise pretty well focused conversation on "Dark matter". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As I said, suggesting is not endorsing. The scientific process is someone presents an observation they do not understand, suggest possible avenues for figuring out what happened and why, and either they or someone else follows up on it with further research. </DIV></p><p>So who gets to subjectively decide what is a reasonable avenue for figuring this out? Why is it "ok" to speculate on their source, but it's not "ok" to talk about the fact that another theory "predicts" the presense of high energy electrons? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IF dark matter behaves the way we believe it to, then this observation might eventually support the idea. </DIV></p><p>The only way to demonstrate this point is via controlled experimentation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody is saying it does, just that it's worth looking into.</DIV></p><p>Why is that idea worth "looking into" whereas other idea are not? Who decides what is a "reasonable' line of persuit?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You have absolutely no idea how science works and cling to archaic standards. </DIV></p><p>I know exactly how science is supposed to work, just like the neutrino side of astronomy "works". These are not "archaic standards" they are the "classic" methods of science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your repeated attempts at turning every thread into an EU thread are futile.</DIV></p><p>I am not doing anything of the sort. I have pointed out the difference between theories that can be emprically supported and ones that are based on ad hoc assertions devoid of emprical support. IT has nothing to do with *ANY* particular theory, and this issue would apply to *all* theories, not one, or a few or them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unlike your argument about what we hear about dark matter, repeating the EU doctrine over and over will not convince us or anyone that it is true. </DIV></p><p>This issue is utterly and totally unrelated to any single theory, or any theory I personally put faith in. It's an issue related to the difference between "empirical physics" like we find in the neutrino example vs. "wild guessing" as we see with those claims about "dark matter" emitting gamma rays and high energy electrons.</p><p>There is in fact a serious and important distinction between *any* theory that enjoys emprical scientific support of concept and one that lacks such support. Again, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any specific theory and it's applicable to *ALL* scientific theories. </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