Dark Matter...WTH?

MeteorWayne · Nov 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The concept of a particle that is only(?) affected by gravity is a less palatable theory to me than the idea that we may have a basic misunderstanding of how gravity works on larger scales.  <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV><br /><br />As Dr Rocket said, with no real understanding of the root cause, it is all a matter of preferences. I prefer that gravity works as we understand...it sure works well for navigating around our neck of the woods.</p><p>At this point, it is all a rather entertaining mystery that we scientists are investigating with extreme effort. I hope some answers will be forthcoming within the next decade, so that I'll live long enough to gain some understanding.</p><p>After all, the moniker "Dark Matter" means we don't know enough about the properties of whatever it is to understand at this point.</p><p>I like having some unknowns out there!

</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The thing is, the science and theory are solid. I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it. <br /> Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that "MACHO" forms of DM are not necessarily "theoretical' in quite the same sense as "WIMPS" or other presumed "non baryonic" forms of "dark matter".  I have no doubt that the limits of our technology prohibit us from correctly determining the amount of "missing mass' we observe from lensing data.   I'm sure some forms of "MACHO" dark matter (baryonic forms) exist in space.  I'm less convinced of WIMPS or anything related to SUSY theory which is itself a *NON* standard brand of particle physics.</p><p>The lensing data does suggest to me that we massively underestimate the amount of "mass" in a galaxy, but whether or not that requires SUSY particles to explain is a completely different conversation.</p><p>I personally don't have any intellectual problem with them "stuffing the gaps" with MACHO forms of "dark matter".  On the other hand I very much resent the notion that this missing mass is found in WIMPS or any other sort of SUSY oriented particle.   </p><p>The lensing data does however seem to favor a 'missing mass' approach over a MOND oriented sort of solution to galaxy rotation curves. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The thing is, the science and theory are solid. I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it. <br /> Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that "MACHO" forms of DM are not necessarily "theoretical' in quite the same sense as "WIMPS" or other presumed "non baryonic" forms of "dark matter".  I have no doubt that the limits of our technology prohibit us from correctly determining the amount of "missing mass' we observe from lensing data.   I'm sure some forms of "MACHO" dark matter (baryonic forms) exist in space.  I'm less convinced of WIMPS or anything related to SUSY theory which is itself a *NON* standard brand of particle physics.</p><p>The lensing data does suggest to me that we massively underestimate the amount of "mass" in a galaxy, but whether or not that requires SUSY particles to explain is a completely different conversation.</p><p>I personally don't have any intellectual problem with them "stuffing the gaps" with MACHO forms of "dark matter".  On the other hand I very much resent the notion that this missing mass is found in WIMPS or any other sort of SUSY oriented particle.   </p><p>The lensing data does however seem to favor a 'missing mass' approach over a MOND oriented sort of solution to galaxy rotation curves. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The thing is, the science and theory are solid. I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it. <br /> Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that "MACHO" forms of DM are not necessarily "theoretical' in quite the same sense as "WIMPS" or other presumed "non baryonic" forms of "dark matter".  I have no doubt that the limits of our technology prohibit us from correctly determining the amount of "missing mass' we observe from lensing data.   I'm sure some forms of "MACHO" dark matter (baryonic forms) exist in space.  I'm less convinced of WIMPS or anything related to SUSY theory which is itself a *NON* standard brand of particle physics.</p><p>The lensing data does suggest to me that we massively underestimate the amount of "mass" in a galaxy, but whether or not that requires SUSY particles to explain is a completely different conversation.</p><p>I personally don't have any intellectual problem with them "stuffing the gaps" with MACHO forms of "dark matter".  On the other hand I very much resent the notion that this missing mass is found in WIMPS or any other sort of SUSY oriented particle.   </p><p>The lensing data does however seem to favor a 'missing mass' approach over a MOND oriented sort of solution to galaxy rotation curves. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The thing is, the science and theory are solid. I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it. <br /> Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that "MACHO" forms of DM are not necessarily "theoretical' in quite the same sense as "WIMPS" or other presumed "non baryonic" forms of "dark matter".  I have no doubt that the limits of our technology prohibit us from correctly determining the amount of "missing mass' we observe from lensing data.   I'm sure some forms of "MACHO" dark matter (baryonic forms) exist in space.  I'm less convinced of WIMPS or anything related to SUSY theory which is itself a *NON* standard brand of particle physics.</p><p>The lensing data does suggest to me that we massively underestimate the amount of "mass" in a galaxy, but whether or not that requires SUSY particles to explain is a completely different conversation.</p><p>I personally don't have any intellectual problem with them "stuffing the gaps" with MACHO forms of "dark matter".  On the other hand I very much resent the notion that this missing mass is found in WIMPS or any other sort of SUSY oriented particle.   </p><p>The lensing data does however seem to favor a 'missing mass' approach over a MOND oriented sort of solution to galaxy rotation curves. </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>

vidargander · Nov 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV><br /><br /><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. </font></font></span><p style="margin:0cm0cm0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies.</font></font></font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vidargander · Nov 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV><br /><br /><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. </font></font></span><p style="margin:0cm0cm0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies.</font></font></font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vidargander · Nov 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV><br /><br /><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. </font></font></span><p style="margin:0cm0cm0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies.</font></font></font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vidargander · Nov 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV><br /><br /><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. </font></font></span><p style="margin:0cm0cm0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="2">It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies.</font></font></font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies. <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity.  Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.  It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</p><p>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.  But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down.  Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.</p><p>That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies. <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity.  Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.  It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</p><p>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.  But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down.  Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.</p><p>That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies. <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity.  Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.  It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</p><p>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.  But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down.  Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.</p><p>That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the Big Flaw is the Big Bang theory. It’s basically religious supported to ‘prove’ the Genesis dogmas, like ‘Let there be light’ and attempts to put an age to ‘Heaven and Earth’. It’s based on the Flat Earth and Flat Heaven theocracies. <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity.  Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago.  It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</p><p>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.  But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down.  Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.</p><p>That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. </DIV></p><p>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,</DIV></p><p>We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago. </DIV></p><p>They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</DIV></p><p>Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.</DIV></p><p>This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  </DIV></p><p>Utterly irrelevant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. </DIV></p><p>Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable. </DIV></p><p>It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. </DIV></p><p>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,</DIV></p><p>We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago. </DIV></p><p>They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</DIV></p><p>Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.</DIV></p><p>This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  </DIV></p><p>Utterly irrelevant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. </DIV></p><p>Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable. </DIV></p><p>It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. </DIV></p><p>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,</DIV></p><p>We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago. </DIV></p><p>They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</DIV></p><p>Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.</DIV></p><p>This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  </DIV></p><p>Utterly irrelevant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. </DIV></p><p>Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable. </DIV></p><p>It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.  It is based on general relativity. </DIV></p><p>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the observed expansion of the universe (whether accelerating or not) and the amount of mass that is known to exist,</DIV></p><p>We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose used general relativity to show that the universe originated in an extremely compact form quite a while ago. </DIV></p><p>They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It follows from mathematics and logic that something like the postulated Big Bang did occur.</DIV></p><p>Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics of general relativity predicts that the universe actually originated from a sigularity, a single point.</DIV></p><p>This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But it is known that general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent.  </DIV></p><p>Utterly irrelevant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Under conditions in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics are needed for an adequately good approximation, our tools break down. </DIV></p><p>Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable. </DIV></p><p>It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a few tens of centimeters in diameter.That is not a matter of religion.  In fact many of the physicists involved in this area of research are not religious.  Far from it.  It is not an argument against religion either.  It is simply science.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?Utterly irrelevant.Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?Utterly irrelevant.Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?Utterly irrelevant.Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not.   GR does not "predict" dark matter, nor does GR predict a "big bang".  Redshift *interpretations" simply suggest that mass was once closer together, though it does *NOT* predict it being condensed to a "point".  Alfven's "Bang" did not require anything like a singularity to have formed.We don't know how much mass exists.  We certainly don't know how much non baryonic "dark matter" exists.They did not "show" anything of the sort.  They "presumed" this to be true.Only if one *insists* on claiming that redshift is due to doppler movement of objects in space.  Even then, Alfven's "Bang" did not assume all matter was as condensed as you presume.This is the pure dogma part.  Even an *interpretation* of redshift due to doppler motion does not lead to a requirement that all matter was condensed to a point.  What about Alfven's brand of a "bang"?  How did you rule that out again?Utterly irrelevant.Again, this is utterly irrelevant and speculative as well.It's "questionable" for a variety of reasons, the least important of which is the notion you mentioned.  There's no requirement for a "singularity" at all.Inflation is real science?  Show me a useful consumer product that runs on "dark" anything or inflation and then tell me it's "simply science".  Dogma isn't science.  Inflation isn't science it's dogma.   Notihing "runs" on inflation, and no useful scientific product is based upon the use of "inflation" to do anything.  The same it true of dark energy, dark matter and monopoles.  These are not "scientific" constructs because all of them are shy around empirical tests. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

robnissen · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a <strong><em>few tens of centimeters in diameter</em></strong>. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV> (emphasis added)</p><p><font size="3">There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p><font size="3">As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p> </p><p><br /></p>

robnissen · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a <strong><em>few tens of centimeters in diameter</em></strong>. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV> (emphasis added)</p><p><font size="3">There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p><font size="3">As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p> </p><p><br /></p>

robnissen · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a <strong><em>few tens of centimeters in diameter</em></strong>. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV> (emphasis added)</p><p><font size="3">There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p><font size="3">As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p> </p><p><br /></p>

robnissen · Nov 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus the singularity itself is questionable.  But the theories are adequate to conclude that the universe was once only a <strong><em>few tens of centimeters in diameter</em></strong>. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV> (emphasis added)</p><p><font size="3">There is absolutely no scientific basis for giving any estimate of the size of the original singularity.  The singularity might have been quark sized such that the visible universe is a big chunk of the total universe, or the original singularity might have been galaxy sized such that the visible universe is a mere trillion/trillion/trillionth of the size of the actual universe.  There is currently no math, nor experimental data that provides the slightest bit of evidence regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p><font size="3">As far as the general point, the original big bang theory did not include inflation.  Inflation was added on later.  It always seemed to me that inflation was a "kludge" to explain why the big bang didn't immediately turn back into a black hole because of the tremendous gravitational forces that existed immediately after the big bang.  That being said, there does appear to be some evidence to support the inflation hypothesis (I question whether inflation qualifies as a theory), but there is NO evidence to support even a speculation regarding the size of the original singularity.</font></p><p> </p><p><br /></p>

Dark Matter...WTH?

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

vidargander

Guest

vidargander

Guest

vidargander

Guest

vidargander

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

robnissen

Guest

robnissen

Guest

robnissen

Guest

robnissen

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page