Jim Spaza wrote:

widsith wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

AC wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:49:25 -0500,
WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

What part of "dark" do you not understand?

The part that says it is purely a theoretical construct designed to
solve the problems with the original Big Bang theory. If scientists
can imagine dark matter out of thin air and use it to fix the problems
with the Big Bang theory, then why can't I theorize that maybe there is
some dark matter which actually emits some radiation? Scientists are
not playing well with others when they invent aspects of the universe
to help THEIR theories under scrutiny but then deny skeptics the same
consideration when alternative theories are created.

Because if there was radiation from dark matter it would have
been found by now. Yes, they have been looking for such things.
No, its not there. Whatever dark matter is, it is not easily
found, except that it does effect large masses of matter in regards to
gravity.

It does not give itself away by irradiating anything, nor by
being visible, nor by being found in the lab.

It seems what Jim thinks is that because we have something we can't readily
explain, he's now at liberty to make any claim he wants, or to ignore any
evidence he pleases.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com

You won't be insulted if I butt in here, since you did mention me by
name. Thanks.

I will only make a claim if there is a logical reason to do so.

This is not true. I have seen you make numerous claims without any
logical foundation at all. The dark matter claim that Aaron mentions
is but one example.

It wasn't THAT illogical. Maybe not completely thought out, but not
completely illogical. Cut me a little slack here, please.

It was that illogical. Admittedly, it doesnt appear to be that
illogical until you at least begin to investigate the matter. Part the
problem is you are discussing cosmology with a number of people who
_have_ investigated it. Perhaps not professionally, but with a fair
bit of interest and rigor none the less.

The only evidence for dark matter is that galaxies seem to be affected
gravitationally by some unknown, unseen mass. That's all.

Indeed. This was the only evidence for the planet Pluto for quite
sometime. I dont see why you find this strange. The only evidence we
have for many things is their effect on other things. When you boil it
down, the only evidence we have for things we do see is the effect on
certain nerves of a very restricted subset of em radiation which was
effected by that object.

I notice you dont address this. I think it is a fairly important
point. We do not ever observe anything directly. (Hence the inability
to disprove the brain-in-a-tank scenario.) It is merely different
levels of inference. Thus the mere fact that something is infered
rather than "observed directly" is not, in and of itself, a reason to
disbelieve it. There is no sharp distinction between inferring
something and observing it.

So, I thought that maybe this matter might not be so dark as once
thought. Maybe this dark matter, if it exists, puts out some
radiation. How would we know if this cosmic radiation came or didn't
come from this matter? Right now, we couldn't tell for sure.

This is simply not so. We could tell, because a) the CMBR is uniform
while the distribution of DM is not and b) the spectrum of the CMBR is
not like that of known matter. It is the spectrum of black-box
radiation, strongly redshifted.

So now you are proposing that something you were doubting the existence
of a paragraph ago has properties contrary to what is supposed by
parcticing astronomers, properties that are infact contrary to Quantum
Mechanics, so therefore you doubt current cosmological models.

Im sorry, that is not a logical reason.

Everyone take a deep breath. I was just discussing this stuff with
people here, not presenting a formal white paper for peer review after
burning a million dollars of government grant money.

But its not complex errors youre making, its the elementary ones; Youre
not close to presenting a formal paper or receiving any grants, youre
failing cosmology 101. Moreover, the problem I see with you is an
inconsistent standard of evidence. You see a picture that you think
shows the CMBR to be not even, you latch on to it, it appears, without
even reading the text surrounding it. You see an abstract of a paper
that describes stars without He lines and you leap on it as evidence
that there are stars without He, even though the one paragraph abstract
you are quoting says differently. Yet, despite being pointed to
several web pages that describe the evidence for the Big Bang and GR
comology and the consistency of the CMBR, you continue to deny those.
Elsewhere you claim this is how you learn, but from my position, it
seems less like you are trying to learn than you are confirming your
biases.

You needed dark matter to plug the holes in your astronomy theories. I
needed dark matter to prove an explanation for cosmic radiation.
What's the big deal?

We have a mechanism. You dont. Thats the difference. We have a
theory, that is a predictive model of the universe, or some portion of
it, along with mapping of the elements of that model to physical
properties. We have reams of supporting evidence, in the form of
measurements of the motions of astronomica bodies. We have hypothesis,
consistent with known science that explains why that matter is dark.
You have a just-so story that effectively denies all of modern physics.

Boy! Don't I feel like the big loser in this forum. :-)

My apologies. I dont want you to feel like a loser. That is not what
I am trying to do. (I know you have a smiley there, but I still want
to make it clear that I am not trying to put you down, as some of the
things I am saying may be hard to take.)

What I am trying to do is to give you some sense of why I think you
should treat the scientific theories with a level of respect. Im not
saying they are necessarily right. I am saying they are well
supported. Im saying that the obvious errors have been shaken out of
them. Scientists dont make up just-so stories. They propose
hypotheses that confirm to the evidence. They then collect more data
to confirm or deny those hypotheses. After 75 years of confirmation,
the Big Bang is fairly solidly supported in its broad outlines. There
is still some furious debate on the details, but there is no doubt that
the universe was once much hotter and denser, that space has been
expanding ever since, and that as you trace the history of the universe
backwards, it looks as if it starts with a singularity.

As a result, I am asking you, as you learn about these matters, if you
think you see something is obviously wrong, consider that its your
understanding and investigate further. Assume, until proven otherwise,
that what you think you see has already been investigated, and try to
find out the results of that investigation and why scientists dont
consider what you think you see as a problem. I assure you that if it
were discovered that some stars did not contain any He, scientists
would be furiously investigating why. How do I know that? Because the
one who would be able to explain it would have made the discovery of a
career. There are very solid reasons why scientists believe dark
matter is dark. They wouldnt be proposing something that is invisible
unless they had ruled out everything they could see, including the
CMBR.

You are right: In many ways, the Big Bang and GR are very
counter-intuitive. That doesnt mean they are wrong. They propose some
very strange things: space and time are the same, mass and energy are
equivelent, space is curved, time is dependent on the observer,
nevermind singularities, expansion of space-time and the idea that
something infinite is expanding. But all of these things have been
confirmed again and again. I can sympathize with you when you say it
doesnt make sense, but that doesnt mean its wrong. If you are really
interested in learning, investigate some of the resources that have
been mentioned earlier. The following web page is a great starting
point: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html. If you have
questions, people here will be more than willing to answer. But if you
keep insisting that its wrong using poorly reasoned and unresearched
arguments, you will keep getting smacked-down. Im hoping you take the
former course.