OT. The Big Boy's Back in March!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Red Hadron Collider said:
That's incorrect. If they don't detect it, a new theory will be required. Some of them are even more excited about that than actually finding it.
Click to expand...


If they don't detect DM, DM theory will just go on lad. There will be a new theory as to why they could not detect the DM that theoretical astrophysiists are adamant is there. There will zero deviation from Dogma. This is not a slight of the guys at Cern, I am just pointing out that nothing they are about to do is aimed at ruling out dark matter theory.

More to the point it would take someone at Cern with absolutely enormous balls to come out and say Dark matter does not exist, immediately the individual that made that claim would come under intense pressure to prove it, even though dark matter has never been proven to exist in the first place <laugh>
 
Plus here's a quandry. If we build new types of detectors to detect things we could not detect before, and we set out looking for a particular thing, there is more than an equal chance that this newly detectable matter will be called "Dark matter" right off the bat and Nobels will be handed out.
 
imo why dark matter is cack.

The theory comes from Galaxy rotation speeds, telescopes could only see 20% of the matter calculated to be required for such a rotation
I ask how they calculated the weight of a galaxy when A we have a total guesstimate of how much earth weighs. B don't even actually know what is inside a star much less weigh it, C we don't know how much black holes weigh.. if they are what theory says they are, surely they are of near infinite weight ;) What's near infinite right? <laugh>. D Our telescopes cannot see plasma under certain circumstances, there is infinite amounts of plasma and this is not calculated in galactic weight calculations in any real way, let alone the plasma we can't see which could quite possibly(silly to rule out) be infinitely more abundant than the plasma we can see.
 
Sisu said:
If they don't detect DM, DM theory will just go on lad. There will be a new theory as to why they could not detect the DM that theoretical astrophysiists are adamant is there. There will zero deviation from Dogma. This is not a slight of the guys at Cern, I am just pointing out that nothing they are about to do is aimed at ruling out dark matter theory.

More to the point it would take someone at Cern with absolutely enormous balls to come out and say Dark matter does not exist, immediately the individual that made that claim would come under intense pressure to prove it, even though dark matter has never been proven to exist in the first place <laugh>
Click to expand...
I agree with you to the extent that I'm wary of anything that can only be "proven" mathematically. However, if that is their best guess, then I have no problem with their trying to prove it. How else are we ever to learn something new- just wait until we stumble upon it? Surely experimentation is the only way to try and determine the truth, or at least make some progress towards it?
The scientific community is not one monolithic body intent on forcing its homogeneous opinion on the rest of us ignoramuses, if their findings are inconclusive, there'll be plenty of other scientists eager to call them on it.
 
saintanton said:
I agree with you to the extent that I'm wary of anything that can only be "proven" mathematically. However, if that is their best guess, then I have no problem with their trying to prove it. How else are we ever to learn something new- just wait until we stumble upon it? Surely experimentation is the only way to try and determine the truth, or at least make some progress towards it?
The scientific community is not one monolithic body intent on forcing its homogeneous opinion on the rest of us ignoramuses, if their findings are inconclusive, there'll be plenty of other scientists eager to call them on it.
Click to expand...



That's not what I am getting at.
My point is we have
A. very real tangible matter in unknown amounts that fill the spiral arms and core of galaxies, stars are born on strings of plasma, that's the kind of scale we are talking.
B. A mathematical construct borne of dogma and entails wild speculations and incomplete calculations.
Tell me why Cern is going with trying to prove B correct?

Theoretical Astrophysics has got so crazy that they are using theories made up of theories, to prove theories <laugh>

EDIT: If you think I am having a go at Cern.. what do you think would happen if they said we think dark matter is a fantasy and are going to try work with plasma? The response from career TAs and their followers would be swift and severe.
 
Last edited:
Sisu said:
That's not what I am getting at.
My point is we have
A. very real tangible matter in unknown amounts that fill the spiral arms and core of galaxies, stars are born on strings of plasma, that's the kind of scale we are talking.
B. A mathematical construct borne of dogma and entails wild speculations and incomplete calculations.
Tell me why Cern is going with trying to prove B correct?

Theoretical Astrophysics has got so crazy that they are using theories made up of theories, to prove theories <laugh>

EDIT: If you think I am having a go at Cern.. what do you think would happen if they said we think dark matter is a fantasy and are going to try work with plasma? The response from career TAs and their followers would be swift and severe.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I'm nowhere near enough of a scientist to be able to answer your question.
However, I am enough of a linguist to know that this:
A. very real tangible matter in unknown amounts that fill the spiral arms and core of galaxies, stars are born on strings of plasma, that's the kind of scale we are talking.
B. A mathematical construct borne of dogma and entails wild speculations and incomplete calculations.
Click to expand...
is biased language designed to make one proposition seem more reasonable than the other.
 
saintanton said:
I agree with you to the extent that I'm wary of anything that can only be "proven" mathematically. However, if that is their best guess, then I have no problem with their trying to prove it. How else are we ever to learn something new- just wait until we stumble upon it? Surely experimentation is the only way to try and determine the truth, or at least make some progress towards it?
The scientific community is not one monolithic body intent on forcing its homogeneous opinion on the rest of us ignoramuses, if their findings are inconclusive, there'll be plenty of other scientists eager to call them on it.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, but he'll still argue with you. On the Horizon programme, there were 4 scientists all propounding their own theories on what it actually is. I don't know why he's got such a downer on it. As far as the LHC is concerned, theoretical physicists decided what the wanted it to do and experimental physicists designed it. There's no progress without experimentation to back the theories up OR debunk them.
 
I feel like I've seen an episode of Coronation Street that you are all have on Sky plus. I know what happens, Im not going to tell you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back