Active Users:490 Time:13/12/2025 10:16:38 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood then. I thought the proposal was that the Bullet Clusters dark matter passed through the other cluster without collision and was thus farther to the other side of it than the Bullet Clusters other matter, but that the x-ray emitting gases did collide because they were normal matter subject to electromagnetism (as evidenced by the fact they're emitting x-rays). The x-ray emitting gases were significant, as I understood it, because the gravitational lensing associated with the Bullet Cluster is NOT strongest where they are (despite the fact they appear to be the largest concentration of normal matter).


Yes, that's the explanation of the evidence. I'm not sure what that has do to with the objection you made.

Singly or in combination; both seem possible, meaning there are no less than three potential alternatives that don't require positing neutrinos are just one tiny part of a whole new class of matter.


They seem possible because you have an overly-limited view of the evidence.

Also, neutrinos and whatever new particle(s) are found would not necessarily be in the same "class." They would be similar in that they wouldn't interact electromagnetically, but neutrinos are not the only particle for which that is true: see gluons, Z bosons. For that matter, there are also photons, which are carriers for the electromagnetic force; they mediate EM interactions, but do not have such interactions themselves, as they don't have any electric charge.

The second sentence is the reason for the perception in the first. For my part, I don't think anyone overeager to tell a story unsupported by the evidence, but think many overeager to tell a story that allows few if any tests but radically alters the scientific landscape, in the hopes tests will subsequently become possible and supporting evidence found. The problem with that is it encourages the idea that when such a test is found but the evidence is not the problem must be the test rather than the theory. I mentioned James Bockris down below; it was only when I looked up his name to cite for Texas A&Ms role in the cold fusion hoax that I found he's since claimed to be transmuting elements, but whether it's the Philosophers Stone or cold fusion, if you keep looking and looking for something of which you find not even a hint, rather than not looking hard enough, the reason may be that it's simply not there.


But, in the case you describe, there would be other scientists just as eager to change the landscape in a different direction, by proving the first group wrong.

We have more than just hints that dark matter exists and is exotic. We know from the current evidence that direct detection of it will be hard to do, so the fact that we haven't seen any results yet isn't inconsistent or a warning sign. If we thought it was going to be easy and then didn't come up with anything, that would be a different story.

I haven't taken any classes on those specific subjects rather than general physics, no, and acknowledge the large possibility I'm simply not well enough informed to know all the ways my objections have been addressed. However, my concern is that a lot of people who should know better are too invested in dark matter to look for explanations, in the abstract, rather than simply proof of the dark matter they KNOW is there. They have a word for that, but it isn't "science".


But this concern is based on an incomplete understanding of the evidence (and what still sound a lot like impressions derived from news media sensationalism to me). The idea that some scientists get "too invested" may certainly be true in general, but that is not a valid reason to aspersions on the entire enterprise, because there are always going to be other scientists going in other directions, and in this specific case, the evidence simply isn't nearly as flimsy as you think it is.
Reply to message
Exciting video about the universe Camilla - 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM 1349 Views
Cool, and true *NM* Stephen - 28/04/2011 11:46:29 AM 476 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect. Joel - 28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM 1071 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM 1006 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM 920 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM 1034 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM 967 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM 923 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM 897 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM 977 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. Joel - 07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM 1074 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM 902 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. Joel - 14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM 871 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM 944 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. Joel - 19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM 876 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM 949 Views
The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM 898 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM 1119 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM 917 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM 985 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM 1245 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM 1237 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter: Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM 924 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM 1054 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM 1018 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM 1007 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM 962 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM 1154 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM 927 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM 1216 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM 812 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM 1170 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM 937 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM 1251 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM 1087 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM 1307 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM 1048 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99) Tor - 28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM 1378 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. Joel - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM 915 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM 934 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM 1066 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM 878 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM 1404 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM 889 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM 1136 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM 1016 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM 1231 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM 942 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM 1216 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM 937 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM 896 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM 857 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM 955 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM 902 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM 1089 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM 1062 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at Isaac - 29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM 878 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two. Joel - 30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM 949 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly Isaac - 30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM 866 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM 1057 Views
Well, they weren't, not really sure how else to put that Isaac - 10/05/2011 03:19:57 AM 1065 Views
Alright then, objection withdrawn (cautious skepticism intact). Joel - 14/05/2011 05:34:17 AM 1188 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes