<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>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram