Dark Matter mapped
-
Dark matter isn't a definite thing! Dark matter is a something we don't understand. It has nothing to do with "if the theory is correct". You act like it is a fact, true it is not, but nor is it a hypothesis. A theory is something we have evidence for, but there are several possibilities. 1) you say we are not allowed to say "Dark matter" because dark matter means "unknown" and we must say "unknown object we don't understand". You are going to make life very long winded. 2) ALL of our instruments do NOT indicate that nothing is there. All of our current energy spectrum instruments indicate there is nothing there, but there is MEASURABLE influence of gravitational influence in the region beyond which we can explain with our energy measurments. This implies there is something "we don't understand there". So we say "dark matter" which means "something we can measure only by influence, but we don't understand." Translation of your (3) then becomes The common title of this thread and the article it references, "Something we don't understand but can only measure by influence has been mapped by its influence only", is inaccurate because nobody - including scientists in question - has located any actual things we do not understand but measure by influence -- postulated that they don't understand, yes, but not actually detected. All of our instruments indicate there is only things there we understand, though the behavior of nearby objects indicate that there should be something there, therefore we don't understand it, but we cannot say "dark matter" because that implies we don't understand it, so we must say instead, "Something we don't understand and cannot see, but we can see influence related to other things we can see, and can measure, and thus do not understand." Which is the exact meaning of "Dark Matter!" If scientists knew what dark matter was, it wouldn't be "dark matter" it would be quantum phase particles or superstring compact hyperdimensional bodies, or something else. If scientists knew what it was, it WOULD NOT BE DARK MATTER any more! We actually do not fully understand gravity itself, we only measure gravity by its influence on ourselves or other objects. So I guess we should throw away the term gravity because we do not fully understand it, but can only measure it based on its influence on others and refer to it only as "the force which we can measure by influence on other bodies but do not fully understand where and how it comes from." :rolleyes: I like gravity, its shorter.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
We actually do not fully understand gravity itself, we only measure gravity by its influence on ourselves or other objects. So I guess we should throw away the term gravity because we do not fully understand it, but can only measure it based on its influence on others and refer to it only as "the force which we can measure by influence on other bodies but do not fully understand where and how it comes from." I like gravity, its shorter.
Gravity is the name of a force - not whatever unknown causes that force; see here[^]. That is why I have no objection to the term. The gravitational force exists and can be, and has been, measured. Dark matter is not the name of an observed force, it is the name of the "stuff" that is supposed to be responsible for an observed gravitational force; see here[^]. And rewording my statements so that they are significantly longer and then claiming that my approach is too wordy is nothing but an example of the "straw man" fallacy.
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
We actually do not fully understand gravity itself, we only measure gravity by its influence on ourselves or other objects. So I guess we should throw away the term gravity because we do not fully understand it, but can only measure it based on its influence on others and refer to it only as "the force which we can measure by influence on other bodies but do not fully understand where and how it comes from." I like gravity, its shorter.
Gravity is the name of a force - not whatever unknown causes that force; see here[^]. That is why I have no objection to the term. The gravitational force exists and can be, and has been, measured. Dark matter is not the name of an observed force, it is the name of the "stuff" that is supposed to be responsible for an observed gravitational force; see here[^]. And rewording my statements so that they are significantly longer and then claiming that my approach is too wordy is nothing but an example of the "straw man" fallacy.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Dark matter is not the name of an observed force, it is the name of the "stuff" that is supposed to be responsible for an observed gravitational force; see here[^].
Dark matter is a "term" applied to an unknown object to which we can see observational influence of gravity, but no visible energy is seen over the distances. Because it is unkown there are a dozen theories as to what "dark matter" might be. You are saying we are not allowed to call it dark matter because dark matter is unknown, but we can call it "unknown". We cannot say that we have measured its influence through observation of apparent (meaning appearance, visible, seen) influence, but must say that we observe something unknown having an influence that we can see and measure but can't claim to measure because we don't see the object causing it. Dark matter simply means we don't know what is there, but can observe the influence. That is exactly what is happening, we are observing the influence in a region of space, measuring and qualifying that influence to the best of our abilities. If there were no influence, there would be nothing to measure. What is there, no one knows, and freely admit that they do not know, which is why it is called "dark matter" and not "superstring quantum fields" or what ever the favored theory of the day to explain the influence of "dark matter". When they actually know what it is, it will cease to be dark matter and become the object that is discovered. But until then, we measure the influence, because that **IS** all that we can see. We quantify and measure the influence becuase the influence **IS** visible. We do not know what is causing the influence, so we refrence the dozen theories to explain the visible and measurable phenomon as "dark matter".
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Nice reply, thanks ..
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Also things change as we are watching them
wasnt that a Heisenberg principle - very roughly for us laymen, the more you observe something the more you are likely to interfere with whats happening ?... Ive suggested the same thing in monitoring real-time message flows at 'my shop' 'g'
Ha! That reminds me of something another, wittier programmer here said. He was trying to track down a "Heisenbug"; everytime he tried to trap it, the crash would occur elsewhere.
-
Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as "dark matter". See here[^] for an alternative opinion. The existence of dark matter is an unproven theory - prehaps right, perhaps wrong - but certainly unproven. There is no known test for the detection of dark matter; it's composition is unknown; it is a purely theoretical construct. Which is why no one should speak of "mapping it"; such pseudo-scientific statements are simply misleading.
This sounds a bit like the arguments against believing in a higher power, or God if you prefer.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Which is why no one should speak of "mapping it"; such pseudo-scientific statements are simply misleading.
No one is suggesting that this theory is proven. But it does help to fill in some of the holes in the rest of our observations.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Dark matter is not the name of an observed force, it is the name of the "stuff" that is supposed to be responsible for an observed gravitational force; see here[^].
Dark matter is a "term" applied to an unknown object to which we can see observational influence of gravity, but no visible energy is seen over the distances. Because it is unkown there are a dozen theories as to what "dark matter" might be. You are saying we are not allowed to call it dark matter because dark matter is unknown, but we can call it "unknown". We cannot say that we have measured its influence through observation of apparent (meaning appearance, visible, seen) influence, but must say that we observe something unknown having an influence that we can see and measure but can't claim to measure because we don't see the object causing it. Dark matter simply means we don't know what is there, but can observe the influence. That is exactly what is happening, we are observing the influence in a region of space, measuring and qualifying that influence to the best of our abilities. If there were no influence, there would be nothing to measure. What is there, no one knows, and freely admit that they do not know, which is why it is called "dark matter" and not "superstring quantum fields" or what ever the favored theory of the day to explain the influence of "dark matter". When they actually know what it is, it will cease to be dark matter and become the object that is discovered. But until then, we measure the influence, because that **IS** all that we can see. We quantify and measure the influence becuase the influence **IS** visible. We do not know what is causing the influence, so we refrence the dozen theories to explain the visible and measurable phenomon as "dark matter".
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Now if only this same skepticism and critical thinking would be applied to his views on spirituality and God. Its amazing how this type of critical approach goes out the window when someone "believes" something.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The point I'm trying to make here is simply that theories should not be presented as facts. They should be presented as theories. For example:
Andy Brummer wrote:
Most galaxies have a uniform distribution of dark matter which produces the rotational pattern described.
You don't know that, and nobody else does either; the existence of dark matter, however likely or helpful in balancing the equations, has not been proven. The above statement, therefore, should be worded something like: "The rotational pattern of most galaxies could be explained by recourse to a uniform distribution of as-yet-undetected dark matter. The actual explanation, of course, may turn out to be something quite different. We simply don't know at this point." When theories are treated as facts, scientific enquiry is stifled, not encouraged.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is simply that theories should not be presented as facts. They should be presented as theories.
Isn't God a theory until proven through experience? But you present scripture and its implications as fact. The correct approach would in fact be agnosticism.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is simply that theories should not be presented as facts. They should be presented as theories.
Isn't God a theory until proven through experience? But you present scripture and its implications as fact. The correct approach would in fact be agnosticism.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Isn't God a theory until proven through experience? But you present scripture and its implications as fact. The correct approach would in fact be agnosticism.
Would be, if we didn't have to "start somewhere". We appear to have certain structures in our brains that more-or-less force us to think in specific ways; structures that more-or-less insist on a particular point of view that is, nevertheless, unproveable by the usual means. For example, the idea that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater to C" is axiomatic to the structure of our brain. Generally speaking, no one proves it to us, and no one needs to. It is inherently obvious to all (except the mentally defective). Now I think that the thought, for example, that "you can't get something from nothing" is a concept of this very same kind - it is built in, immediately obvious to (almost) all, and ridiculous to deny. And the inability of the evolutionists to convince the vast majority of the American population (over 85% by the latest polls) that the concept of "intelligent design" and of some kind of "creator" is unnecessary and wrong, bears me out. In spite of their pervasive influence. As Peter said, "Every house is made by some man; but He who made all things is God." One has to labor to deny this train of thought - it is unnatural to do so; but it is simple and easy and natural to agree with it. And most people - a vast, vast majority, all over the world, do.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Isn't God a theory until proven through experience? But you present scripture and its implications as fact. The correct approach would in fact be agnosticism.
Would be, if we didn't have to "start somewhere". We appear to have certain structures in our brains that more-or-less force us to think in specific ways; structures that more-or-less insist on a particular point of view that is, nevertheless, unproveable by the usual means. For example, the idea that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater to C" is axiomatic to the structure of our brain. Generally speaking, no one proves it to us, and no one needs to. It is inherently obvious to all (except the mentally defective). Now I think that the thought, for example, that "you can't get something from nothing" is a concept of this very same kind - it is built in, immediately obvious to (almost) all, and ridiculous to deny. And the inability of the evolutionists to convince the vast majority of the American population (over 85% by the latest polls) that the concept of "intelligent design" and of some kind of "creator" is unnecessary and wrong, bears me out. In spite of their pervasive influence. As Peter said, "Every house is made by some man; but He who made all things is God." One has to labor to deny this train of thought - it is unnatural to do so; but it is simple and easy and natural to agree with it. And most people - a vast, vast majority, all over the world, do.
The Grand Negus wrote:
It is inherently obvious to all (except the mentally defective).
There you go again. People are mentally defective if they don't "believe" like you do. Until experienced, it can only be theory. There are people who think that way about science as well. Only the mentally defective would believe in God.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now I think that the thought
This statement is intelligent. "I think" says it all. Its still theory. Now, personally, I've had my own experience which proves it to me, but this doesn't remove the fact that it is still theory for most, and I can't convey my experience with any meaning, except to people who experienced something similar, and even then there will be a disconnect. So at best it is a personal journey taken on faith with the hopes of validation at some point. And really, even though you make the assumption that only defectives don't believe in a creator, it can't be proven. So the logic you use to dispute dark matter flies out the window when you talk of god, and you resort to scripture, which is really using the thing argued about to prove itself. This just doesn't work. It can only be proven through experience and that is personal. Religion won't prove anything.
The Grand Negus wrote:
As Peter said, "Every house is made by some man; but He who made all things is God." One has to labor to deny this train of thought - it is unnatural to do so; but it is simple and easy and natural to agree with it. And most people - a vast, vast majority, all over the world, do.
It requires no labor to deny the thought. It requires labor to seek out the proof of this thought to culminate in the edifying experience that makes it true. But none at all to deny it. And really none of this should be taken on belief. But should be questioned again and again til experience lights the way, which should result in a personal realization that noone else can share.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Ha! That reminds me of something another, wittier programmer here said. He was trying to track down a "Heisenbug"; everytime he tried to trap it, the crash would occur elsewhere.
:-) 'g'
-
Wow. I really wish I could understand that. Is that part of what's call the Grand Unified Theory or M-Theory? Are you still working in the physics field? If not, why not? I doubt there are very many people in the world who can help advance that field, so it would be a shame to lose one of them.
No, I am not actively doing physics for a while now. In the end, the very basic bread and butter is more important if there is a real lack of it. The next level supporting environment (e.g. the respect of interllectual properties, etc.) need to pursuing such problems are also lacking ... No one can live in a draining environment for long. But I am working on "unified systems for computers":), so stay tuned. (I am kind of kidding, you know ...) Regards, S. Ying CryptoCategway and Lexica2[^]
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
It's not just a job! It's an adventure...
I think they must have occult powers! Particle physics is, though very very complex, science, but when you have to join particle with astrophysics, then you must be a magician.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
CPallini wrote:
I think they must have occult powers! Particle physics is, though very very complex, science, but when you have to join particle with astrophysics, then you must be a magician.
I thought that was what quantum mechanics was for?
Life is nothing but an individuals perception of an immortals dream. - ME
-
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
are there still things that we cant see because we dont have the correct technology/viewpoint
Yes - the 'ether' for one. And the gluons that hold everything together are invisible, too.
"...a photo album is like Life, but flat and stuck to pages." - Shog9
Roger Wright wrote:
Yes - the 'ether' for one. And the gluons that hold everything together are invisible, too.
That is why super colliders are for. But they are somewhat inneficient when attempting to detect glouns. a famous phrase springs to mind. "Scotty we need more speed". and the reply was...
Life is nothing but an individuals perception of an immortals dream. - ME
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
It is inherently obvious to all (except the mentally defective).
There you go again. People are mentally defective if they don't "believe" like you do. Until experienced, it can only be theory. There are people who think that way about science as well. Only the mentally defective would believe in God.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now I think that the thought
This statement is intelligent. "I think" says it all. Its still theory. Now, personally, I've had my own experience which proves it to me, but this doesn't remove the fact that it is still theory for most, and I can't convey my experience with any meaning, except to people who experienced something similar, and even then there will be a disconnect. So at best it is a personal journey taken on faith with the hopes of validation at some point. And really, even though you make the assumption that only defectives don't believe in a creator, it can't be proven. So the logic you use to dispute dark matter flies out the window when you talk of god, and you resort to scripture, which is really using the thing argued about to prove itself. This just doesn't work. It can only be proven through experience and that is personal. Religion won't prove anything.
The Grand Negus wrote:
As Peter said, "Every house is made by some man; but He who made all things is God." One has to labor to deny this train of thought - it is unnatural to do so; but it is simple and easy and natural to agree with it. And most people - a vast, vast majority, all over the world, do.
It requires no labor to deny the thought. It requires labor to seek out the proof of this thought to culminate in the edifying experience that makes it true. But none at all to deny it. And really none of this should be taken on belief. But should be questioned again and again til experience lights the way, which should result in a personal realization that noone else can share.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
There you go again. People are mentally defective if they don't "believe" like you do.
It's a practical matter with me, Chris. If someone won't agree that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C" I really don't think discussions with that person will be very fruitful for either party. And if someone rejects the thought that everything we see and are implies an intelligent designer of some sort, but prefers to pull out of his hat unproven and unprovable theories based on things that have never been observed by anyone, I don't think conversation with that person will be very fruitful either. You can, of course, decide for yourself which mind appears to be defective; I say it's the one that bears no lasting fruit.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
There you go again. People are mentally defective if they don't "believe" like you do.
It's a practical matter with me, Chris. If someone won't agree that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C" I really don't think discussions with that person will be very fruitful for either party. And if someone rejects the thought that everything we see and are implies an intelligent designer of some sort, but prefers to pull out of his hat unproven and unprovable theories based on things that have never been observed by anyone, I don't think conversation with that person will be very fruitful either. You can, of course, decide for yourself which mind appears to be defective; I say it's the one that bears no lasting fruit.
The Grand Negus wrote:
It's a practical matter with me, Chris. If someone won't agree that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C" I really don't think discussions with that person will be very fruitful for either party.
Not if A can't be proven to exist. Your theory depends on acceptance of A, B, and C as valid values. Since we're talking about theories and proof, in regards to Dark Matter, this analogy of logic doesn't work. Logic doesn't get to be selective.
The Grand Negus wrote:
And if someone rejects the thought that everything we see and are implies an intelligent designer of some sort, but prefers to pull out of his hat unproven and unprovable theories based on things that have never been observed by anyone, I don't think conversation with that person will be very fruitful either.
Implies isn't proof. Implies is unproven and unprovable, just like what you are stating regarding evolution. And it didn't come out of a hat. Evolution is just as much theory as God. You are talking around this. A theory of the unprovable. God AND Evolution. Neither are provable. So your words apply to both when used in a general context like you are doing. That's logic. You can't fault Dark Matter as unprovable, then claim fact and truth with another unprovable. In this case God. And for your own information, I subscribe to the hybrid theory. God uses evolution. Freewill means something. Striving out of the dark to reach light has value. Else he's just a puppet master not deserving of respect. And if I can figure that out, then any intelligence at the center of all things would surely get it. Immanence is real. In fact you and I are just God arguing with itself. Who do you think will win? Maybe the one most accepting of truth. Regardless of how unsavory it might be. I believe in God, and accept the truth that it is only theory til proven through one's own experience. I also believe in evolution and dark matter, but also understand that it is only theory, and probably not provable through experience. If there's any cognitive dissonance in this then good luck.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
It's a practical matter with me, Chris. If someone won't agree that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C" I really don't think discussions with that person will be very fruitful for either party.
Not if A can't be proven to exist. Your theory depends on acceptance of A, B, and C as valid values. Since we're talking about theories and proof, in regards to Dark Matter, this analogy of logic doesn't work. Logic doesn't get to be selective.
The Grand Negus wrote:
And if someone rejects the thought that everything we see and are implies an intelligent designer of some sort, but prefers to pull out of his hat unproven and unprovable theories based on things that have never been observed by anyone, I don't think conversation with that person will be very fruitful either.
Implies isn't proof. Implies is unproven and unprovable, just like what you are stating regarding evolution. And it didn't come out of a hat. Evolution is just as much theory as God. You are talking around this. A theory of the unprovable. God AND Evolution. Neither are provable. So your words apply to both when used in a general context like you are doing. That's logic. You can't fault Dark Matter as unprovable, then claim fact and truth with another unprovable. In this case God. And for your own information, I subscribe to the hybrid theory. God uses evolution. Freewill means something. Striving out of the dark to reach light has value. Else he's just a puppet master not deserving of respect. And if I can figure that out, then any intelligence at the center of all things would surely get it. Immanence is real. In fact you and I are just God arguing with itself. Who do you think will win? Maybe the one most accepting of truth. Regardless of how unsavory it might be. I believe in God, and accept the truth that it is only theory til proven through one's own experience. I also believe in evolution and dark matter, but also understand that it is only theory, and probably not provable through experience. If there's any cognitive dissonance in this then good luck.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Neither are provable.
Agreed. But we have to take a position, one way or the other, in order to make any progress at all. As Einstein said, "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." In other words, when you're trying to "figure things out", you can either assume that some intelligent designer put everything together with some good purpose in mind, or you can assume something else and work from that other premise. I'm with Einstein: (a) God exists, and (b) He doesn't play dice with the universe. My research begins and ends on that point, so if someone can't or won't accept that, it is better if we work separately. And I'm not talking about you here - I'm talking in general.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
In fact you and I are just God arguing with itself.
I don't believe this; I am not a pantheist. I believe that God is separate and distinct from his creation.
-
It's incredible what astronomers can do nowadays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6235751.stm[^].
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.Everything with a pinch of salt, especially when it comes to space. Scientists always try to sound brainy when they haven't made any new discoveries for some time. Think about all the "New Discoveries" that were later quietly swept under carpet due to their theories being incorrect. Dark matter could exist but until they can physically test it they shouldn't claim that they can see it. There is far too much that is unknown about space to claim that what they see is in fact dark matter and not just some galactic aurora.
-
It's incredible what astronomers can do nowadays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6235751.stm[^].
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
CPallini wrote:
I think they must have occult powers! Particle physics is, though very very complex, science, but when you have to join particle with astrophysics, then you must be a magician.
I thought that was what quantum mechanics was for?
Life is nothing but an individuals perception of an immortals dream. - ME
Antony Clements wrote:
I thought that was what quantum mechanics was for?
No, a (magic) theory able to join relativistic quantum mechanics with general relativity.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
-
Antony Clements wrote:
I thought that was what quantum mechanics was for?
No, a (magic) theory able to join relativistic quantum mechanics with general relativity.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
CPallini wrote:
No, a (magic) theory able to join relativistic quantum mechanics with general relativity.
AHHH the grand unified theory of everything strikes again.
Life is nothing but an individuals perception of an immortals dream. - ME
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Neither are provable.
Agreed. But we have to take a position, one way or the other, in order to make any progress at all. As Einstein said, "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." In other words, when you're trying to "figure things out", you can either assume that some intelligent designer put everything together with some good purpose in mind, or you can assume something else and work from that other premise. I'm with Einstein: (a) God exists, and (b) He doesn't play dice with the universe. My research begins and ends on that point, so if someone can't or won't accept that, it is better if we work separately. And I'm not talking about you here - I'm talking in general.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
In fact you and I are just God arguing with itself.
I don't believe this; I am not a pantheist. I believe that God is separate and distinct from his creation.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But we have to take a position, one way or the other, in order to make any progress at all.
No you don't. This is the basis behind agnoticism. An open minded skepticism that allows discovery but doesn't bind you to a given concept.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm with Einstein: (a) God exists, and (b) He doesn't play dice with the universe. My research begins and ends on that point, so if someone can't or won't accept that, it is better if we work separately. And I'm not talking about you here - I'm talking in general.
I'm with the other guys, Bohr, God does play dice with the universe, because controlling everything gets boring after a few eons. Much better to see what rises from the chaos that we create for ourselves.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I don't believe this; I am not a pantheist. I believe that God is separate and distinct from his creation.
No immanence huh? Even Jesus believed in this. The kindom of heaven is within us. We are the cells of God.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder