Could Dark Matter Possibly Be . . .

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman,

Did I say " like the flat Earth"? I thought I said, "in a sense like flat Earth of today." You may not see a differrence between the spirit of one remark over another, ESPECIALLY when taken out of it's context, but I respectfully assure you there is a difference. My reall statement was not the condemnation that you have made it out to be so I don't know why I'm bothering to comment. Maybe to state that my intention was in using the metaphor as an example of limited knowledge being always the culprit at any stage of scientific evolution. That's all. If you read more into it than that then shame on you for plucking the tree out of the forest. My post in it's entirety is the point, not the stupid and tired old flat Earth rhetoric

[apodman]

... I thought I said, "in a sense like flat Earth of today." You may not see a differrence between the spirit of one remark over another, ESPECIALLY when taken out of it's context ... My real statement was not the condemnation that you have made it out to be so I don't know why I'm bothering to comment. ... My post in it's entirety is the point, not the stupid and tired old flat Earth rhetoric

I DID purposely take your phrase out of context to use as a takeoff point for what I wrote. I thought it was clear that I had removed it completely from its context (not implying any other context) and was writing about the pervasive occurrence of the phrases "big bang" and "flat earth" together, not about any statement you made. If this wasn't clear, I apologize. I have edited the post in question to make this more clear. I DO see the difference between the spirit of various remarks.

Like other contributors, I use the phpBB quote feature both for highlighting a remark to which I am replying and for marking a point of continuity in a discussion. If I am replying to what I have quoted, I hope to be so direct in my comments that everyone can tell. If I am simply putting in a little glue to keep the thread together, I hope to stay completely away from the contributor's point so everyone can tell. I don't always succeed.

[astrolabe]

OOPS

Hello apodman,

I apologize for being inexcusably defensive. Out of character for me and out of line for the Forum as a whole. Darn! just when I though my integrity was peaking Of course you're right on the money, in the same post is bad enough but in the same sentence? Good call- it IS like apples an concrete- no comparisons are justified. Boy, can't believe I said the very thing I roll my eyes at when I see it but the posts don't lie. BTW, for the record, I haven't believed that the Earth is flat for quite some time now.

[apodman]

... defensive

Reasonable enough. Readers view future posts in the light of where they think you stand, so it's worth clearing up potential misinterpretations. I would do it.

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman,

Reasonable enough. Thanks.

[Sputnick]

Chris - I don't mean this as an insult, but while your posts display some level of education some of your posts are deliberately antagonistic, and very often too immature intellectually for me to respond to or to read from this point on. If I can block your posts I will.

... alcohol

Block my posts too, please. I would be honored to be considered as intellectually immature as Chris.

Apod - Please let's not start a war because I won't participate. I've never seen anything offensive in your posts. Perhaps I should have made that message to Cris a Personal Message .. however, I didn't .. what's done is done.

[Sputnick]

It is ridiculous to say that all ideas, no matter how ridiculous, deserve consideration.

And who is to be the judge of what is "ridiculous"? In a forum like this it obviously becomes the judgement of the moderator with the delete button. In a university it is obviously the person who is in charge of the department. However, these positions of judgement change over time .. and what was once the ridiculous becomes the proven fact.
These kinds of moderated forums are great teachers of human nature involving the evolution/degeneration of thought processes and authority. I suggest the forum become self moderating so that forum users could anonymously delete offensive posts .. that way the only posts which would remain would be acceptable to all and therefore probably posted in a way so careful and intelligent as not to offend anyone by terrible things like racism and theory not being presented as fact, etc.

[Chris Peterson]

And who is to be the judge of what is "ridiculous"?

In this forum, as with science- indeed, the world- in general, it is largely judged by consensus. When you reach the point that you're the only one arguing for a position, that's a hint that "ridiculous" might be the proper word. Of course, it might just be non-scientific, and therefore not interesting to most forum participants.

I suggest the forum become self moderating so that forum users could anonymously delete offensive posts .. that way the only posts which would remain would be acceptable to all and therefore probably posted in a way so careful and intelligent as not to offend anyone by terrible things like racism and theory not being presented as fact, etc.

I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this entire discussion. I found nothing particularly offensive at all- nothing worse than tiny barbs that would be encountered in any discussion. You have proved yourself to be a little irritating, mainly by putting words in other people's mouths, and dwelling on non-issues (as here, where you suggest that theories are being presented as facts, which I find no evidence of). But these are fairly minor things. BTW, I'd firmly place the notion of giving everybody the power to remove "offensive" posts into the "ridiculous" category. There would be no posts left. You obviously found something I said offensive, although I have no idea what. Oops, there go my posts. Now I'm pissed. Oops, there go your posts. Well, that's one way to keep discussions short!

I'm curious for some examples of what you mean by "offensive posts", because I just don't see them.

[Sputnick]

While I promised myself not to respond to you Chris, and that coming mostly from your repeated use of 'concensus" being the foundation for thinking yourself correct when the concensus was that the world was flat .. perhaps I was being too judgemental of what I perceived to be your faults .. but yes, you're partly correct .. if everyone were to delete what each of us thought were offensive posts, we would be left either with no posts, or with posts which are so carefully worded and considerate of all viewpoints as not to be offensive to anyone .. and that should be our goal .. a mature and barbless forum, because barbs only serve one purpose, to satisfy our sense of condemnation of what we perceive as others' faults. I just don't have the time to go back and gather evidence for my posts .. it would be an all day job.

By the way .. you might be interested in discussing 'what is science' - a topic I just started in the cafe. I also started a topic 'what is Dark Energy' I'll admit I'm good at starting things which I don't finish though .. one of my great failures .. while of course I do finish some things I begin.

[Chris Peterson]

While I promised myself not to respond to you Chris, and that coming mostly from your repeated use of 'concensus" being the foundation for thinking yourself correct when the concensus was that the world was flat ...

Ah, but I don't think I'm correct when I take the consensus viewpoint. I just think I'm taking the consensus viewpoint. However, from a historical perspective- with respect to modern science- the consensus viewpoint has most often turned out to be right (or converging on right). The point I've been trying to make, but which I don't think you've been taking, is that a theory being supported by consensus is not a trivial thing. If a theory has a strong consensus, it places more of a burden on those arguing against it to frame their arguments using methods developed by thinkers in the 18th Century, and which continue to be used to this day.

FWIW, there was never a consensus amongst educated people that the Earth was flat. That is a myth.

[Sputnick]

If a theory has a strong consensus, it places more of a burden on those arguing against it to frame their arguments using methods developed by thinkers in the 18th Century, and which continue to be used to this day.

No - I think it places the burden of proof on those joing the conensus.

FWIW, there was never a consensus amongst educated people that the Earth was flat. That is a myth.

18th Century? How about 1000 B.C. (or so - when the Greeks had the earth's circumfrence measured to within several miles?

You probably are correct about 'educated people' not having concensus that the earth was flat .. trouble is, the reigning Europeans were not educated and they allowed much less education among their populations which were basically slaves .. and today's scientists, despite having the ability to split the atom, are not much further advanced, the greatest evidence being the continued thought that 'concensus' equals mass.

[Chris Peterson]

If a theory has a strong consensus, it places more of a burden on those arguing against it to frame their arguments using methods developed by thinkers in the 18th Century, and which continue to be used to this day.

No - I think it places the burden of proof on those joing the conensus.

Well, all I can say is that you have an odd take on this. If you take a minority position, the only hope you have of swaying the majority is by demonstrating very convincingly why your idea is better. The majority feels no burden of proof at all, regardless of your thoughts on the matter. In the absence of a compelling argument on your part, the majority will simply ignore you. I don't see how that serves your purposes.

18th Century? How about 1000 B.C. (or so - when the Greeks had the earth's circumfrence measured to within several miles?

No, I'm talking about the style of reasoning that was largely developed during the Age of Enlightenment. This differs in many ways from other rigorous forms of dialog found in earlier times. The modern style of dialog parallels the scientific method.

You probably are correct about 'educated people' not having concensus that the earth was flat .. trouble is, the reigning Europeans were not educated and they allowed much less education among their populations which were basically slaves

Very few Europeans ever considered the Earth flat. It was known to be spherical by anybody with even limited education (such as merchants), and was probably not thought of at all by the lowest classes. It was certainly never taught as being flat.

... and today's scientists, despite having the ability to split the atom, are not much further advanced, the greatest evidence being the continued thought that 'concensus' equals mass.

See, this is the kind of statement that gets you into trouble. It's silly, and nobody can really take it seriously. You offer it as a sort of attack on modern science (which has demonstrated enormous success using its methods), with no evidence whatsoever. An ad hominem attack on an entire way of thinking and class of thinkers.

We are judged by the quality of our arguments. Offer up enough like this, which will indeed strike most people as ridiculous, and you will find yourself ignored. Like it or not, that's human nature.

[Sputnick]

Chris - that someone could consider for even a moment that a huge explosion of nothing (except you will say 'it was an ultradense singularity smaller than a pinpoint) started the universe is absurd even if some say it is the concensus which, in reading sciene magazines, I find to be just not so. I don't have to prove anything to anyone .. but those in your concensus certainly should have to show why you all agree, but you can't form any concensus of fact except to say ' I wanted to be included in the majority of the class who was awarded a diploma so I provided the approved answer for my examination paper".

Anyway .. this discussion is going nowere .. round and round and round in circles. We should move on to acceptace if each other's limitations.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris - that someone could consider for even a moment that a huge explosion of nothing (except you will say 'it was an ultradense singularity smaller than a pinpoint) started the universe is absurd...

Anyway .. this discussion is going nowere .. round and round and round in circles. We should move on to acceptace if each other's limitations.

I'm afraid no acceptance is possible here. Your position (a personal philosophical objection to something which is supported by objective evidence) is non-scientific, and is therefore simply irrelevant in this (scientific) forum.

You need to be able to say why the BB is absurd, in objective terms. That's what I'm still waiting for. Otherwise, you have no case.

From a philosophical standpoint, drawing upon human experience, what creation story/hypothesis/theory isn't "absurd"? The Universe has always been here? Absurd. The Universe was created at some time? Absurd. The Universe arose out of a super-universe? Absurd. There is simply no framing this problem in a way that can satisfy human intuition. So honest science ignores that, and simply follows the objective evidence where it leads.

I've said it before, and will no doubt say it again. The Universe is under no obligation to operate under rules that seem natural to us.

[Nereid]

It is ridiculous to say that all ideas, no matter how ridiculous, deserve consideration.

And who is to be the judge of what is "ridiculous"? In a forum like this it obviously becomes the judgement of the moderator with the delete button.

Let's not get too carried away; the stated scope of this forum is "astronomy", and there's a caveat that it's a "scientific forum".

Also, with the current version of the phpBB software, mods have considerably more capabilities - to enforce rules, to keep the forum running smoothly, etc - than merely a delete button.

Unstated, or weakly stated, so far is another rather critical fact: none of us has at our disposal a time machine, or other device, which can be used to ascertain which theories (etc) in modern astronomy are regarded as "ridiculous" in our futures.

Put all this together, and a question I asked you some time ago now remains pertinent: how does one decide, today, whether a particular idea is within the scope of this forum or not?

The "astronomy" part is pretty easy (in most cases), but it seems you, Sputnick, are having a lot of difficulty over the 'as science' part.

And while it's quite stimulating to have a discussion about science, in general, from a historical or philosophical perspective, it seems to me that nothing much, so far, is of direct help to a mod facing decisions about particular posts ...

In a university it is obviously the person who is in charge of the department. However, these positions of judgement change over time .. and what was once the ridiculous becomes the proven fact.

Indeed.

However that's rather moot, wouldn't you say?

These kinds of moderated forums are great teachers of human nature involving the evolution/degeneration of thought processes and authority. I suggest the forum become self moderating so that forum users could anonymously delete offensive posts .. that way the only posts which would remain would be acceptable to all and therefore probably posted in a way so careful and intelligent as not to offend anyone by terrible things like racism and theory not being presented as fact, etc.

As you yourself note, later, this is not very practical ...

[Nereid]

There are several very good points in this post of astrolabe's (hiya a'abe!), but I'd like to highlight just a few ...

[...]

As for the flat Earth, it was a product of the times and a lack of knowledge of course. Accepted mainstream theory like the BB is in a sense the flat Earth of today, but even though, if we've learned nothing from the past we've at least learned this: We can only generate Knowledge at a rate that we are capable of in any given generation, assumptions and speculations aside- we"ll always have those. I'm really speaking to the ability to amass hard evidence about our world and beyond. The BBT is the current framework used to put the puzzle together. 50 yrs. from now, 200 yrs. who's to say- the BBT could be hogwash. But for [now] it is the big dog on the block and whether mainstream scientists even like the idea or not doesn't matter. [...]

There's a lot of meat here, standing on the shoulders of giants, the ongoing incorporation of hard-won knowledge into the collective and growing body of same, refinement of tools and techniques, etc, etc, etc.

That the BBT is, indeed, "the big dog on the block" is not as interesting (in one critical respect) as why it is that dog ... and why the other dogs are such puny runts.

Also, if one wants one's own ideas to take over the big dog, what is it one has to do? Can such a course of action be sketched? Laid out in some detail?

Finally, and this is a real doozy I think, in how much of a minority would the contemporary scientists be of those who had no desire whatsoever to be among those who the writers of science history in future recorded as laying the foundations of the dog who took over from the BBT? More simply, are there any modern astronomers who actively shy from making paradigm-breaking discoveries, or writing paradigm-shattering theories?

[Nereid]

Chris - that someone could consider for even a moment that a huge explosion of nothing (except you will say 'it was an ultradense singularity smaller than a pinpoint) started the universe is absurd even if some say it is the concensus which, in reading sciene magazines, I find to be just not so. I don't have to prove anything to anyone .. but those in your concensus certainly should have to show why you all agree, but you can't form any concensus of fact except to say ' I wanted to be included in the majority of the class who was awarded a diploma so I provided the approved answer for my examination paper".

Anyway .. this discussion is going nowere .. round and round and round in circles. We should move on to acceptace if each other's limitations.

Starting about the 1920s, or maybe a decade or so earlier, the idea that uninformed human intuitions could be a reliable guide to 'the laws of physics' lost whatever credibility it may still have had.

Once quantum mechanics became established, and even more once the experimental tests of Bell's inequality started to be published, it was clear that the universe seems to behave in ways that are utterly bizarre, absurd, mind-blowing, etc ... at least in respect of the millions of accurate experiments done to test quantum mechanics.

Of course, one may say one finds any one of modern science's theories "absurd", especially quantum mechanics; however, if one does so, one is left with the rather uncomfortable reality of not only rejecting the most stringently tested theory in science (to date) - QED has been confirmed to some 14 (12?) significant figures - but also having no basis for explaining how one's computer works.

So, if you wish to stay within the scope of this forum, may I recommend that you find other reasons for not accepting modern cosmological models (than merely that you find them absurd)?

[apodman]

It is ridiculous to say that all ideas, no matter how ridiculous, deserve consideration.

If I came to you with a theory about numbers that didn't even mention numbers, that would be ridiculous. If I said that electromagnetic waves were made out of bunny rabbits, that would be ridiculous.

But I don't think I was addressing whether or not any particular idea was ridiculous, nor by what criteria or by whom it should be judged.

I think I was addressing (actually stating a position against) the idea of getting away with logic like "Science is supposed to be open to all ideas, so your science is deficient because it doesn't accept, address, or consider my idea which deserves attention." Of course, my idea might deserve attention, but it has to get in the door on merit, not on a flimsy statement that you should let it in because you should let everything in.

I'm also against the idea of getting away with logic like "You let that other idea in without much merit that I can see, so why should my idea have to show merit?"

[Sputnick]

It is ridiculous to say that all ideas, no matter how ridiculous, deserve consideration.

And who is to be the judge of what is "ridiculous"? In a forum like this it obviously becomes the judgment of the moderator with the delete button.

Let's not get too carried away; the stated scope of this forum is "astronomy", and there's a caveat that it's a "scientific forum".

sputnick wrote

Right - astronomical without question .. but 'what is science' has been questioned .. and declarations made that 'PC is not science'. So if my attempt was successful I started a 'What is science' topic in this cafe.

Also, with the current version of the phpBB software, mods have considerably more capabilities - to enforce rules, to keep the forum running smoothly, etc - than merely a delete button.

Plus of course natural human tendencies towards kindness.

Unstated, or weakly stated, so far is another rather critical fact: none of us has at our disposal a time machine, or other device, which can be used to ascertain which theories (etc) in modern astronomy are regarded as "ridiculous" in our futures.

So then - should we take the risk of saying ANY idea is ridiculous?

Put all this together, and a question I asked you some time ago now remains pertinent: how does one decide, today, whether a particular idea is within the scope of this forum or not?

The "astronomy" part is pretty easy (in most cases), but it seems you, Sputnick, are having a lot of difficulty over the 'as science' part.

sputnick wrote

Nereid, dear person, I view your statement that 'PC is not science' in the same way.

And while it's quite stimulating to have a discussion about science, in general, from a historical or philosophical perspective, it seems to me that nothing much, so far, is of direct help to a mod facing decisions about particular posts ...

In a university it is obviously the person who is in charge of the department. However, these positions of judgment change over time .. and what was once the ridiculous becomes the proven fact.

Indeed.

However that's rather moot, wouldn't you say?

These kinds of moderated forums are great teachers of human nature involving the evolution/degeneration of thought processes and authority. I suggest the forum become self moderating so that forum users could anonymously delete offensive posts .. that way the only posts which would remain would be acceptable to all and therefore probably posted in a way so careful and intelligent as not to offend anyone by terrible things like racism and theory not being presented as fact, etc.

As you yourself note, later, this is not very practical ...

sputnicik wrote

I don't think I did anything such thing .. and I still think it is practical .. if we respect the right of each other to an opinion and respect moral and criminal laws.

I am trying hard to understand how to operate the quote mechanism .. but my computer time is restricted, and I have much to do.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

When you figure out how to use that pesky "Quote button" l-l-l-l-l-l-let me know. I'm a bit leary of buttons m'self in the new APOD post environment. 'Preciate ya bein' brave!

[Nereid]

Sputnick, I can't really follow what you were saying in your most recent post in this thread, so what follows may not be relevant.

So then - should we take the risk of saying ANY idea is ridiculous?

Of course ... this forum has a fairly well defined scope, and within that scope a great many ideas are 'ridiculous'.

I've said this before, and it seems I'll be saying it again: if you're interested in discussing ideas beyond the scope of this forum, why not find a different one? Or, better still, why not set up your own internet discussion forum?

the stated scope of this forum is "astronomy", and there's a caveat that it's a "scientific forum".

Right - astronomical without question .. but 'what is science' has been questioned .. and declarations made that 'PC is not science'. So if my attempt was successful I started a 'What is science' topic in this cafe.

Looks like you succeeded; here is the thread.

I doubt that this will be all that helpful, either to the specific item (Plasma Cosmology is non-science for reasons I have already stated, and in any case there's an offer on the table to discuss this) or the general (there's an earlier thread, with a considerably narrower scope, that you started - sorta - to which you've not contributed much; it's already six pages long).

[astrolabe]

Chris and Nereid,

Exellent Thank you both and you get an A+ for eloquence

[Sputnick]

Astrophysics was once non-science as far as the establishment was concenerned, and Celia Payne was considered a non-scientist. I highly, highly, highly recommend the book 'Through a Universe Darkly' by physicist Marcia Bartusiak. This book puts historical condemnation of new ideas in a beautifully bright light.

[Nereid]

Astrophysics was once non-science as far as the establishment was concenerned,

It was?

When?

and Celia Payne was considered a non-scientist.

Do you mean Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin?

I highly, highly, highly recommend the book 'Through a Universe Darkly' by physicist Marcia Bartusiak. This book puts historical condemnation of new ideas in a beautifully bright light.

The Bartusiak book is principally about people, rather than science, isn't it? And it was first published over a decade ago, in 1993, right?

If you're interested in a popular-level book on Dark Matter, I think a much better one is "In Search of Dark Matter", by Ken Freeman and Geoff McNamara. Not only is this much more recent (published in 2006) so it reports some of the really exciting discoveries Bartusiak cannot have known, but Ken Freeman is an astronomer, actively involved in studying dark matter for several decades now.

But let's come back to one (of several) questions of mine you have not yet addressed Sputnick: how does one go about deciding which concepts (theories, etc) in contemporary astronomy will become superceded in future?

I'm particularly interested in your ideas on how you'd distinguish an Einstein's General Relativity (GR) superceding Newton's universal law of gravitation (the latter remains a good approximation to the former; you only need GR in circumstances waaaay beyond those you experience here on Earth, or where precision faaar beyond anything attainable in Newton's day is necessary) from a [OIII] forbidden lines superceding 'nebulium' (the latter - a new atomic element - is quite wrong).

[Sputnick]

My computer time is over, Nereid, please enter a search for the book and author.