Could Dark Matter Possibly Be . . .

[Nereid]

Nereid - comparing an electron to Dark Matter or the Big Bang is a stretch.

I agree, it's certainly "a stretch"!

But if your only comment on the matter is what I quoted earlier, I'm sure you'd agree it's not a stretch at all.

Electrons are well enough known to have thousands of commercial applications. When Dark Matter reaches the same stage of investigation and application I think your comparison will be appropriate.

OK, that's something more concrete ... but is it any more useful?

For example, there are no "commercial applications" of quarks, neutrinos, and the metastable states of doubly ionised oxygen that give rise to the two green [OIII] lines - or are there?

So by the Sputnick criterion (we'll get onto how well this aligns with the status of 'dark matter' within astronomy later), Dark Matter and quarks have equal status, right?

Chris - we have never touched matter? Forgive me for not having a dictionary in my pocket but is matter not the solid world around us? Is my computer keyboard, for instance, not composed of matter? You know, I think I'll look up an internet definition of matter .. but even before I do so I am sure my keyboard keys are not composed of Dark Matter just because they're black (with white letters.) Okay .. I found matter in Wikipedia .. if you have a different definition please provide it.

Matter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Matter (physics))
Jump to: navigation, search
Matter is commonly defined as being anything that has mass and that takes up space. However this definition is ambiguous, and leads to some problems, leading some physicists to define matter in terms of certain types of elementary particles.

"Normal matter" constitutes about 5% of the mass of the observable universe, the remaining mass being composed of exotic and poorly understood forms of mass, currently known as dark matter and dark energy. There are four phases of macroscopic matter (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma) although some exotic phases (such as Bose-Einstein condensates and quark-gluon plasma) exist as well.

Contents

1 Definitions
1.1 Common definition
1.2 Mass definition
1.3 Quarks and leptons definition
2 Properties of matter
2.1 Bulk properties of matter
2.1.1 Solid
2.1.2 Liquid
2.1.3 Gas
2.1.4 Plasma
2.2 Fundamental properties of matter
2.2.1 Quarks
2.2.2 Leptons
3 Baryonic matter
4 Antimatter
5 Dark matter
6 Exotic matter
7 References
8 External links

Definitions

Common definition

Phosphorus sesquisulfide is a molecule made of four atoms of phosphorus, and three atoms of sulfur arranged in a C3v symmetry.The common definition of matter is anything which both occupies space and has mass. For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass. In chemistry, this is often taken to mean what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. For example, phosphorus sesquisulfide is a molecule made of four atoms of phosphorus, and three of sulfur (see image on right), and is thus considered to be matter.

However in physics, there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter, partly because the notion of "taking up space" is ambiguous in quantum mechanics, and partly because mass doesn't lead to a "natural classification" of particles. Therefore physicists generally do not use the term matter when precision is needed, preferring instead to speak of the more clearly defined concepts of mass, energy, and particles. In discussions of matter and antimatter, normal matter is also sometimes referred to as koinomatter.[1]

Mass definition
Since space is problematic, a possible definition of matter could be anything that has mass. This leads to some inelegance problems in particle physics, as particles tend to be regrouped into "families" based on properties other than mass. For example, photons

...

This certainly is interesting, but how well does it align with the reality of astronomers' Dark Matter?

Wouldn't you agree that the place to start with a science-based examination of astronomers' Dark Matter is what they themselves have to say about it?

Assuming your answer is "yes", here's a few things to begin: it is "cold" and "non-baryonic". Each term has a specific and technical meaning, re Dark Matter; "cold" means something like "moving at speeds less than relativistic wrt its environment, or the local CMB"; and "non-baryonic" means, in effect, something like "has an extremely small cross-section re photons" or "like neutrinos, does not 'feel' the electromagnetic force". The "baryonic" part comes from baryons (duh!) which are composed of quarks and do feel the electromagnetic force; for astronomers, "baryons" are principally protons and neutrons (and the atomic nuclei made up of them).

Dark Matter also has mass.

And so on.

However, to come back to something I've been asking you to start discussing, Dark Matter, to astronomers, is no different than quarks and neutrinos are to particle physicists, and isotopes to nuclear chemists, and archaea to biologists, and ... a testable, unifying concept.

To quote from a quote in an earlier post of mine in a different thread:

...

What science can do, and is built to do from the ground up, is to provide a testable theoretical framework that organizes, unifies, explains, and predicts, the observational data at our disposal, and guides future observations within reach of our technology. That it can be tested just means the framework can be challenged to explain new data [...]

...

[Nereid]

One more comment for Chris and (Nereid also?)

Chris says, "In the case of dark matter, we believe in it because of our observations of its gravitational interaction with other matter. Our understanding of gravity is as good as our understanding of the electromagnetic force. I see no reason to accept the existence of one kind of matter and not another, when both are well supported by observation."

You believe that something is causing effects on other matter. Okay. You call it Dark Matter. Okay. That would all be acceptable IF you were to say "Something we call Dark Matter may be having these effects on Matter" .. but to say "Dark Matter is having these effects on Matter" is possibly wrong on two counts: 1 - Dark Matter may not exist; 2 - Something else besides anything yet considered may be causing the effects.

Thanks for the invitation.

The quote in my previous post (in this thread) directly addresses this (that I am quoting here); to answer each "possibly wrong" count:

1. within the framework described by KenG, science is silent on whether something exists or not ... any individual is, of course, quite free to go beyond the limited framework of science and infer existence (or non-existence)

2. certainly! and one of the most successful parts of Dark Matter is its ability to generate testable hypotheses!!

More generally, and as above, you could substitute "quarks" or "neutrinos" or "electrons" or ... for Dark Matter and your statement would work just as well; for example, here it is with neutrinos:

That would all be acceptable IF you were to say "Something we call neutrinos may be having these effects on Matter" .. but to say "neutrinos are having these effects on Matter" is possibly wrong on two counts: 1 - neutrinos may not exist; 2 - Something else besides anything yet considered may be causing the effects."

Equally as important is the undeniable fact that your statement attempts to include a group of people you are identifying only as 'we'. Is this 'we' you and your brother? You and the professor at university who perhaps presented Dark Matter as a possibility but which you translated into fact? You and a group of scientists who you are willing to name? Or are you using the term "we" to simply multiply the opinion of one person (yourself) into many persons?

I can't answer for Chris P (obviously), but I took him to mean 'modern-day astronomers', as the focus of this forum is a science-based discussion of astronomy.

There is a 'we' on the other side of the table of debate table as well, who I do not know and so who I cannot name and therefore who I will not include in a 'we' when making statements I believe in, saying instead "I believe this may be true". In this forum, the 'we' who disagree that Dark Matter exists and causes the effects on Matter - that side of the debate table I have seen derided with words like "garbage" when expressing explanations they think may be valid. (That word not directed at me, but at a fan of the Plasma electric universe school of thought.)

Without a specific reference, I cannot comment in anything other than general terms ... however, I am on record, in this forum, as stating that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is non-science, so in respect of this being a science-based discussion forum, PC has no place here.

Further, I stated why PC is non-science ... and I offered to engage, yet again, in a discussion of why it is non-science. To date, no one has taken me up on that offer.

I do not know what the facts are .. not because of lack of education, but because scientists who are highly educated do not know if Dark Matter exists, if the Big Bang happened .. those things are just possibilities no matter how much you, Chris, or others, think they believe them to be facts.

Assuming you include me in "others", may I say that this is a mischaracterisation of what I have written here in this forum?

I would like you to clarify this please - do you include me, Nereid, in your assertion (that I believe 'Dark Matter exists' and 'the Big Bang happened' are 'facts')?

In any case, once again I invite you to join in any one of the several on-going discussions, here in this forum, on the nature of astronomy as science.

[Sputnick]

Chris - part of what I perceive to be a problem with your perception is that you are grouping yourself with others who you consider to be the 'all' - when they are only part of the 'all'.

Your quote - "This certainly is interesting, but how well does it align with the reality of astronomers' Dark Matter?
Wouldn't you agree that the place to start with a science-based examination of astronomers' Dark Matter is what they themselves have to say about it?"

Yes, I agree, however you use the very revealing phrase "... what they themselves have to say about it..."
Despite my lack of formal education I have read enough science articles to know that not all astronomers think alike - that there are divisions and differences of opinion among astronmers about any astronomical topic except perhaps simple things like yes our planet has a moon and that moon orbits our planet, simple things .. yet you group astronomers as if they are of one mind .. and that mind is the mind that believes what you believe. You will expand your ability to observe and explore possibilities if you get beyond the mindset that thinks of itself as THE mindset.

Example - Apprentice Plumbers can and do come up with great new ideas in plumbing which established plumbers find difficult to accept because the Establishment is what the established plumbers grew up in. We all need to truly think for ourselves and to see for ourselves in order to shake off the 'programming' that erodes our intellect.

On a personal note - I think your desire to engage in a discussion of 'why Plasma Cosmology is non-science' is because you enjoy debate heated to stellar temperatures .. and I think that is why people won't take up your discussion .. they don't need a meltdown of patience.

[Sputnick]

Nereid - your quote "I can't answer for Chris P (obviously), but I took him to mean 'modern-day astronomers', as the focus of this forum is a science-based discussion of astronomy."

I believe you're wrong .. I believe Chris meant 'astronomers who think as I do." Like I said in a post a few minutes ago I have read enough science articles to know that modern day astronomers differ in beliefs .. in conclusions .. in possible explanations for observations. I am tremendously impressed while reading those articles when I read statements like, "Of course, these things may not be so." That shows open mindedness and ability to admit that our modern day knowledge is not perfect.

[Chris Peterson]

You believe that something is causing effects on other matter. Okay. You call it Dark Matter. Okay. That would all be acceptable IF you were to say "Something we call Dark Matter may be having these effects on Matter" .. but to say "Dark Matter is having these effects on Matter" is possibly wrong on two counts: 1 - Dark Matter may not exist; 2 - Something else besides anything yet considered may be causing the effects.

I would argue that when a scientist says "dark matter is having these effects..." the meaning is "something we call dark matter may be having these effects...". The first usage is a shorthand, used to avoid becoming overly cumbersome. This is convention that scientists understand. You could equally require me to say "when I put my hand up to the keyboard, something we call matter interacts with my hand, through a mechanism we call electromagnetic interactions, which may be producing repulsion" and so on and so on. It is understood that all theories are simply attempts to explain observations, and any of them could be wrong (although this isn't likely) or incomplete (which is more likely).

Equally as important is the undeniable fact that your statement attempts to include a group of people you are identifying only as 'we'.

I use "we" as a substitute for the scientific community in general. I think that's fair when discussing theories that are widely accepted.

I do not know what the facts are .. not because of lack of education, but because scientists who are highly educated do not know if Dark Matter exists, if the Big Bang happened .. those things are just possibilities no matter how much you, Chris, or others, think they believe them to be facts.

I don't consider either of those things to be facts, and I don't know of any other scientists who believe that, either.

[Nereid]

Chris - part of what I perceive to be a problem with your perception is that you are grouping yourself with others who you consider to be the 'all' - when they are only part of the 'all'.

I think you meant "Nereid"

Your quote - "This certainly is interesting, but how well does it align with the reality of astronomers' Dark Matter?
Wouldn't you agree that the place to start with a science-based examination of astronomers' Dark Matter is what they themselves have to say about it?"

Yes, I agree, however you use the very revealing phrase "... what they themselves have to say about it..."
Despite my lack of formal education I have read enough science articles to know that not all astronomers think alike - that there are divisions and differences of opinion among astronmers about any astronomical topic except perhaps simple things like yes our planet has a moon and that moon orbits our planet, simple things .. yet you group astronomers as if they are of one mind .. and that mind is the mind that believes what you believe. You will expand your ability to observe and explore possibilities if you get beyond the mindset that thinks of itself as THE mindset.

Let's see ... if you read papers in a journal such as ApJ or MNRAS you'll find words and phrases like "CMB", "gamma ray emission", "magnetars", "Herbig AeBe stars", "quintessence", "stellar mass black holes", "relativistic electron" and many many more.

In most cases the author(s) of the paper rely on common understanding of many terms, in others they spend some time explaining what they mean by a term (usually in the introduction section of the paper). If you trace the history of a term such as "CMB" or "GRB" you'll see it change from the latter to the former.

There are certainly astronomers who have written papers which present explanations for (one or more classes of) observations without Dark Matter, such as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) for the distilled conclusion of 'rotation curves of spirals'^, but in most (if not all) such papers the term "Dark Matter" is used, with the meaning modern-day astronomers attach to it.

The point I was making is that whatever science-based discussion you want to have about Dark Matter, you need to start with a common understanding of the term. I was also trying to point out that the approach you were taking to that common understanding was not very helpful, for several reasons.

Example - Apprentice Plumbers can and do come up with great new ideas in plumbing which established plumbers find difficult to accept because the Establishment is what the established plumbers grew up in. We all need to truly think for ourselves and to see for ourselves in order to shake off the 'programming' that erodes our intellect.

Indeed.

May I suggest that before apprentice plumbers can come up with any ideas (in plumbing) at all they need to have a working knowledge of the basic terms used by plumbers?

^ I hope you realise, by now, that 'rotation curve of {name} galaxy' is not data, or even an observation, but an interpretation derived from observations ... do you?

[Nereid]

Commenting on the late addition

[...]

On a personal note - I think your desire to engage in a discussion of 'why Plasma Cosmology is non-science' is because you enjoy debate heated to stellar temperatures .. and I think that is why people won't take up your discussion .. they don't need a meltdown of patience.

Allow me to clarify, if I may.

I do not have any "desire to engage in a discussion of 'why Plasma Cosmology is non-science'", and if I gave any reader that impression I'd like to take this chance to set the record straight.

I consider PC to be non-science, for reasons I have already stated.

Ergo, there is no place for it here, in this forum, on this board.

HOWEVER, if any member has a contrary view, and wishes to present PC material here, I request that they first engage in a discussion of why they consider it to be science.

In closing, may I also request that you do not write material, in posts in this forum, which are presumptions about me? Unless, of course, you can - upon request - quote directly from my own posts.

[Sputnick]

Chris,
"I use "we" as a substitute for the scientific community in general. I think that's fair when discussing theories that are widely accepted."

No, that's not fair. If science is to remain science there must be no 'scientific community in general' when it comes to who seems what as which. For instance, I should not ever speak for everyone who rides a moped. It's the same mentality.

"I don't consider either of those things to be facts, and I don't know of any other scientists who believe that, either."

Well, unless I'm reading everything wrong here, and I agree I make mistakes, you lead me to believe you believed those things to be facts.

[Sputnick]

Nereid,

"I consider PC to be non-science, for reasons I have already stated. Ergo, there is no place for it here, in this forum, on this board."

That's the problem then, that you are in a position where you have a delete button and will use it to censor those who believe PC to be science unless they first engage in gruelling cross examination. Sorry Nereid, but that is tyranny instead of forum moderation.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris,
"I use "we" as a substitute for the scientific community in general. I think that's fair when discussing theories that are widely accepted."

No, that's not fair. If science is to remain science there must be no 'scientific community in general' when it comes to who seems what as which. For instance, I should not ever speak for everyone who rides a moped. It's the same mentality.

There is a scientific community. It is a real thing. And there are many theories that are accepted by consensus within that community, meaning that a significant majority of the members of that community accept them as the currently best explanation for what they model. Thus, "we" do believe the Big Bang is the best theory of the evolution of the Universe, and that some type of physical matter, called dark matter, is the best explanation for what we observe and for what our origin theories require. When one says the community believes something this way, it does not imply that every member feels that way. In America, "we" voted for a change in direction this week. That's a perfectly reasonable statement, even though it doesn't speak for everyone. Similarly, you as a moped rider can probably speak for the community in some cases: "we feel that drivers need to work harder to watch out for us". That's not the same as speaking for everyone who rides a moped.

"I don't consider either of those things to be facts, and I don't know of any other scientists who believe that, either."

Well, unless I'm reading everything wrong here, and I agree I make mistakes, you lead me to believe you believed those things to be facts.

You are certainly reading this wrong. I have stated on several occasions that I don't consider any theory to be a fact, and have carefully defined what I consider facts to be (careful observations). But I'll say this again: the Big Bang is not a fact; I do consider it to be the best theory currently developed to explain the evolution of the Universe. The existence of dark matter is not a fact, but I consider the theory that it exists, and is a form of cold, non-baryonic matter to be the best theory currently developed to explain our observations.

[Chris Peterson]

That's the problem then, that you are in a position where you have a delete button and will use it to censor those who believe PC to be science unless they first engage in gruelling cross examination. Sorry Nereid, but that is tyranny instead of forum moderation.

I'd argue that science is a grueling cross examination, which is conducted according to a certain protocol. It can be the failure to argue in this specific manner that places something in the category of non-science, because there is no common ground to even consider the material.

Nereid's "tyranny" is the same as if he required everyone here to speak English. It's the common language of the forum. There's nothing wrong with Italian, but if that's all you can speak, you're not really welcome here.

[Nereid]

Nereid,

"I consider PC to be non-science, for reasons I have already stated. Ergo, there is no place for it here, in this forum, on this board."

That's the problem then, that you are in a position where you have a delete button and will use it to censor those who believe PC to be science unless they first engage in gruelling cross examination. Sorry Nereid, but that is tyranny instead of forum moderation.

Earlier I asked you to not make presumptions, yet here you are again, making them.

It's certainly true that I "have a delete button", as do all the other admins and mods; it's also true that I - and others - use that button ruthlessly, without a second's thought, to delete porn spam, advertisements for male organ enhancements, and so on (and ban the registered member who posted them).

re: "and will use it to censor those who believe PC to be science unless they first engage in gruelling cross examination" - may I ask, politely, for you to back up your presumption, with direct quotes of what I have written?

You are, of course, entitled to consider any actions of any member of this board in any way you wish ... however, for other readers of this post: the job of a forum mod is to moderate in accordance with the forum rules. Is there any other way a mod can act?

Let's review one of them, shall we?

5. This is a scientific forum which focuses on astronomy; there are hundreds of internet discussion fora where ideas outside the scope of this one can be freely discussed, so if you want to discuss any such topic, please join one of them.

(emphasis added)

On the old board, the equivalent rule was:

3. No threads about conspiracy theories, astrology, magic, abductions, UFO sightings, etc. I will delete any threads on these two subjects regardless of any replies. In particularly egregious cases, the thread starter will be banned. This is a scientific forum, if you want to talk about such subjects, there are many other message boards on the internet to post about such things.

But perhaps a question which arises might be "how does a forum mod decide what astronomy, as science, is (and what is not)?"

Suppose, for a moment, that you, Sputnick, were a forum mod; how would you make such decisions?

[Sputnick]

Chris
"There is a scientific community ... ...there are many theories that are accepted by consensus within that community, meaning that a significant majority of the members of that community accept them as the currently best explanation for what they model. Thus, "we" do believe the Big Bang is the best theory ......"

Sputnick -
Okay .. I suggest then that you drop the use of the unclear and confusing word "we" so that your use of the English language is understood by all users of the English language, saying instead "...a significant majority of the members of that community...". I am also certain that many scientists will forgo the use of the word "we" when defining the scientific community, as they know that the word "We" can apply to Sputnick and his dog, except that I do not have a dog.

Chris
"... But I'll say this again: the Big Bang is not a fact; I do consider it to be the best theory currently developed to explain the evolution of the Universe. The existence of dark matter is not a fact, but I consider the theory that it exists, and is a form of cold, non-baryonic matter to be the best theory currently developed to explain our observations."

Excellent use of the English language, Chris .. far better than 'Italians are not welcome here' .. Italians who bring some Italian wine with a nicely genuine cork easily penetrated and removed by a corkscrew of light or other substance would be especially welcome here (where I am that is) even if they spoke no English.

[Sputnick]

Nereid,

Suppose, for a moment, that you, Sputnick, were a forum mod; how would you make such decisions?

Sputnick to Nereid - This figure is one which is wearing good quality reading glasses to assist in the vast study of what astronomy is -

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You searched for Astronomy (all pages starting with "Astronomy" | all pages that link to "Astronomy")
Jump to: navigation, search

Showing below results 1 - 20 of 9648

(more)en.wiktionary.org results:

* astronomy
* radio astronomy

(more)en.wikibooks.org results:

* Astronomy
* Astronomy/Telescopes
* Astronomy/Tools

(more)en.wikiquote.org results:

* Astronomy

(more)en.wikiversity.org results:

* Astronomy
* Observational astronomy
* Astronomy Project
* Backyard Astronomy

* Astronomy
Astronomy (from the Greek words astron (ἄστρον), "star", and nomos (νόμος), "law") is the scientific study of celestial objects (such as ...
60 KB (7733 words) - 00:06, 5 November 2008
* Astronomy in medieval Islam
In the history of astronomy , Islamic astronomy or Arabic astronomy refers to the astronomical developments made in the Islamic world , ...
136 KB (19372 words) - 06:10, 4 November 2008
* Indian astronomy
Indian astronomy—the earliest textual mention of which is given in the religious literature of India (2nd millennium BCE)—became an ...
33 KB (4335 words) - 19:56, 31 October 2008
* History of astronomy
Astronomy is the oldest of the natural science s, dating back to antiquity , with its origins in the religious , mythological , and ...
51 KB (7312 words) - 11:28, 24 October 2008
* Astronomy Magazine
Astronomy (ISSN 0091-6358) is a monthly American magazine about astronomy . and articles on astronomy and astrophysics that are ...
6 KB (825 words) - 21:07, 3 September 2008
* Greek astronomy
Greek astronomy is the astronomy of those who wrote in the Greek language in classical antiquity i.e. see Aristarchus of Samos Greek ...
22 KB (3114 words) - 18:46, 29 October 2008
* Chinese astronomy
Astronomy in China has a very long history. Oracle bone s from the Shang Dynasty (2nd millennium BC ) record eclipses and novae. ...
29 KB (4182 words) - 21:28, 15 October 2008
* Archaeoastronomy (redirect Archaeo-astronomy)
Clive Ruggles argues it specifically is not the study of ancient astronomy , as astronomy is a culturally specific concept and ancient ...
81 KB (12046 words) - 22:43, 31 October 2008
* Astrometry
Astrometry is the branch of astronomy that relates to precise measurements and explanations of the positions and movements of star s and ...
14 KB (1948 words) - 19:37, 25 October 2008
* Topic outline of astronomy
Astronomy is the science of celestial objects (e.g., stars, planet s, comet s, and galaxies ) and phenomena that originate outside the ...
12 KB (1289 words) - 05:41, 9 October 2008
* Hogwarts (section Astronomy)
Astronomy: Astronomy is the only field of study at Hogwarts which has a direct equivalent in the Muggle world. Astronomy classes take place ...
71 KB (10847 words) - 18:37, 4 November 2008
* Astrology and astronomy
Astrology and astronomy are historically one and the same discipline (Latin : astrologia), and were only gradually recognized as separate ...
19 KB (2161 words) - 12:09, 31 October 2008
* Astronomy (album)
Music albums entitled Astronomy may refer to: Astronomy , an album by symphonic power metal band Dragonland. Astronomy , an album by Christian ...
253 B (24 words) - 12:37, 4 August 2008
* International Astronomy Olympiad
The International Astronomy Olympiad (IAO) is an internationally recognized annual astronomy scientific-educating event for high school ...
4 KB (599 words) - 19:15, 27 October 2008
* Astronomy (song)
20 - (A. Bouchard, E. Bloom, S. Pearlman, D. Roeser) Astronomy - 6:38 - (J. Bouchard, A. Bouchard, S. Pearlman) date November 2007" ...
5 KB (575 words) - 00:11, 13 October 2008
* Astronomy (Dragonland album)
Astronomy is the fourth studio album by Swedish power metal band Dragonland , released in Europe on November 13 , 2006 and in North ...
6 KB (760 words) - 11:24, 27 October 2008
* Hindu calendar
S. Balachandra Rao, Indian Astronomy: An Introduction, Universities Press, Hyderabad, 2000." "Hindu Chronology", Encyclopædia Britannica ...
37 KB (5622 words) - 23:48, 1 November 2008
* Astronomy (Bleach album)
Astronomy is the fifth full-length album by the Christian rock band Bleach . It was released in 2003 under Tooth & Nail Records . ...
1 KB (175 words) - 00:08, 13 October 2008
* GCSE Astronomy
GCSE Astronomy is a GCSE type qualification available to students in England and Wales , which is intended to provide a greater depth ...
2 KB (326 words) - 14:43, 27 October 2008 8) This figure is one happily having fallen happily asleep in the sun after reading vast tomes of astronomy.

[Sputnick]

Nereid - you say you don't consider Plasma Cosmology to be science. I ask What is Science?

From an online Science Dictionary.

Science is the study of the natural world through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explations.

Give me an example!

Physical Science is any science that deals primarily with nonliving things.

Simplistic perhaps .. I'll search for more.

[Nereid]

Nereid,

Suppose, for a moment, that you, Sputnick, were a forum mod; how would you make such decisions?

Sputnick to Nereid - This figure is one which is wearing good quality reading glasses to assist in the vast study of what astronomy is -

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You searched for Astronomy (all pages starting with "Astronomy" | all pages that link to "Astronomy")
Jump to: navigation, search

[...]

This figure is one happily having fallen happily asleep in the sun after reading vast tomes of astronomy.

Not exactly the easiest way to make day-by-day, operational decisions, don't you think?

Remember, as a (virtual) mod, you have to actually make a decision!

Concrete example: recently harry posted a link to "blazelabs" (or something similar) - how would you go about making a decision, relatively quickly, concerning whether that material is astronomy, as science?

[Nereid]

Nereid - you say you don't consider Plasma Cosmology to be science. I ask What is Science?

From an online Science Dictionary.

Science is the study of the natural world through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explations.

Give me an example!

Physical Science is any science that deals primarily with nonliving things.

Simplistic perhaps .. I'll search for more.

Don't lose sight of the fact that our scope, in this forum, is considerably narrower than "Science" ... we focus on astronomy, as science.

For example, I'm sure you'd agree that "experimental investigation" is somewhat limited in astronomy ... we can't exactly run controlled experiments on 100 billion objects each composed of ~90% H, ~10% He, ~1% 'metals', with masses ranging from ~0.1 to ~100 sols, distributed over a volume ~50 kpc in radius ...

[Sputnick]

Blazelabs - without referencing I would say it has something to do with a laboratory .. a laboratory is often used to explore science - Science is according to the large encyclopedia in this public library - "possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding" - "knowledge possessed or attained through study or practice."

So I would not delete Blazelabs until I had opportunity to research what a Blazelab is.

By the way - Science fiction is knowledge (so therefore science) according to that same encyclopedia -
"Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals".

[Sputnick]

Nereid wrote -
Don't lose sight of the fact that our scope, in this forum, is considerably narrower than "Science" ... we focus on astronomy, as science.

For example, I'm sure you'd agree that "experimental investigation" is somewhat limited in astronomy ... we can't exactly run controlled experiments on 100 billion objects each composed of ~90% H, ~10% He, ~1% 'metals', with masses ranging from ~0.1 to ~100 sols, distributed over a volume ~50 kpc in radius ...

Sputnick replies -
I guess that's why I included only a few of the thousands of definitions of astronomy included in Wikipedia.

[Sputnick]

Blazelabs - a page from - which seems to be science and which seems at first glance to support the recently proposed idea which proposes that when all known factors are taken into account 'something unknown' is pushing against spacecraft as they travel through space .. (the Pioneer anomaly?)

The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Abstract
[copyright material removed - Nereid]

[Sputnick]

Nereid and Chris - I have only two minutes left on my public access computer time .. and no computer at home .. so I'll see you tomorrow.

[Chris Peterson]

The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Abstract

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unknown mechanism for gravity...

That's as far as I need to get to write this off. No responsible or respectable scientist would say this. This single sentence puts the author into crackpot/pseudoscience territory. A scientist proposing an alternate theory (particularly where the primary theory is well supported by mainstream research) cannot ignore the status quo. It would be reasonable to say "This paper aims at providing a theory of gravity that does not require GR. While GR has demonstrated great success in explaining our observations of gravity, it fails..." But by disregarding completely current theory, he turns away scientific readers. If you want a new idea to be accepted by a community, you'd better play by the rules!

[cosmo_uk]

Whenever I receive a directed 'spam' email to my university account from an 'independent researcher' (I'm trying to be nice here!) they always include a copyright symbol next to some unknown laboratory - in case I copy their work I guess! - its the calling card of the crank

[Nereid]

Blazelabs - a page from - which seems to be science and which seems at first glance to support the recently proposed idea which proposes that when all known factors are taken into account 'something unknown' is pushing against spacecraft as they travel through space .. (the Pioneer anomaly?)

The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Abstract
[copyright material removed - Nereid]

Sputnick, not only did you openly violate one of this forum's rules, but you also failed to respect the direct request of Xavier Borg, the person whose material you copied!

The software we're using now has a 'warning' capability, and once I work out how it works I'll be issuing you a warning. Please re-read the rules and please be more careful in future.

[apodman]

the calling card of the crank

"Once upon a time ..."