Fermi and dark matter

[sol invictus]

What's wrong with this process is that you never demonstrated that item number one was even a valid scientific option, you *assumed* it was a valid possibility. You're willing to explore "other" possibilities but you never demonstrated that item number one was even *A* possibility.

How could a theory not be a "valid possibility" or "valid scientific option"? I suppose it could be logically inconsistent, but the theories at issue here are certainly logically consistent.

The essence of science, the whole point of it, is that you don't know in advance which theories are correct and which aren't. They're all "valid scientific options" until you collect some evidence. Then you use that evidence to rule out some, and then try to differentiate between those that remain standing.

If, like you, you exclude some theories based on your faith that they are "invalid", you're religious. And that's is what all the other threads you've been involved in have boiled down to as well - you're unwilling to accept science as a valid way of approaching the world. Instead, you substitute faith.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How could a theory not be a "valid possibility" or "valid scientific option"? I suppose it could be logically inconsistent, but the theories at issue here are certainly logically consistent.

It has nothing to do with logical consistency, it has to do with what can be shown to exist and emit positrons. DM does not exist as far as you can demonstrate. It has never released a single positron in the lab, so what makes you think it does so "out there somewhere"?

 

[sol invictus]

It has nothing to do with logical consistency,

OK.

it has to do with what can be shown to exist and emit positrons.

But these theories can be shown to exist and be correct (by collecting evidence), and in them the annihilation produces positrons (that's the whole point). So then what's the problem?

Not that that objection makes any sense, but it doesn't even apply to these theories.

DE does not exist as far as you can demonstrate. It has never released a single positron in the lab, so what makes you think it does so "out there somewhere"?

Why are you talking about DE?

Michael, this is really, really, really simple. There are some extra positrons coming from somewhere. We don't know from what. No matter what explanation is proposed, it will be something that has not been demonstrated yet (because if it had been, we'd know where they're coming from, but we don't).

So if your criterion is that we can only consider theories that have been shown to be correct in the lab, then we cannot consider any theory to explain the origin of these positrons.

If we followed your rules, science would stop. That's because your rules are the exact antithesis of science.

 

[Ziggurat]

DE does not exist as far as you can demonstrate. It has never released a single positron in the lab

We're not talking about dark energy, we're talking about dark matter.

 

[edd]

Are neutrinos a leading candidate for DM? Just wondering.

Neutrinos are 'hot' or at least 'warm'. Dark matter for cosmological purposes needs to be cold (hence CDM).

Basically, cold dark matter will sit and gather up in one place and help galaxies form and all that stuff. Neutrinos won't - they'll just whizz off at near light-speed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But these theories can be shown to exist and be correct (by collecting evidence),

You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope. The most you could demonstrate is "missing mass".

and in them the annihilation produces positrons (that's the whole point). So then what's the problem?

The problem is you never demonstrated that DM exists or that it emits positrons! You simply *assumed* both of these things.

Why are you talking about DE?

My bad. It should have been "DM", not "DE".

Michael, this is really, really, really simple. There are some extra positrons coming from somewhere. We don't know from what. No matter what explanation is proposed, it will be something that has not been demonstrated yet (because if it had been, we'd know where they're coming from, but we don't).

Huh? Just because you don't know where they come from, that's not evidence that they come from "dark matter".

So if your criterion is that we can only consider theories that have been shown to be correct in the lab, then we cannot consider any theory to explain the origin of these positrons.

Positrons are clearly involved in ordinary matter and the sun emits wavelengths consistent with matter/antimatter annihilation. What's the need for 'dark matter' when there are billions of known sources for positron/electron annihilation that are already identified?

If we followed your rules, science would stop. That's because your rules are the exact antithesis of science.

No. My rules are the rules of empirical science. Answer that same question I posed earlier about Michael's new theory. Do we also have evidence of God?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We're not talking about dark energy, we're talking about dark matter.

Yes, I know. You guys just invented so many mythical dark entities it's hard to keep them straight.

 

[fuelair]

edd, perhaps you have not met Michael Mozina before. I think you should know a few things about him before you delve in too deeply. He's the owner of this web page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
Among other unconventional beliefs, he believes that the sun has a solid shell surface, and this web page advocates for this idea. Aside from the obvious mechanical instability of such a system, it also contradicts thermodynamics. But Michael refuses to believe what is plain for everyone else to see.

Now my point here isn't actually to discuss the faults of Michael's ideas, because that's been done at length in other threads. We don't need to go over them here. But before you waste too much time trying to convince Michael about rather basic science issues, you should be aware of how futile the task is likely to be.

Ahhh, nut case. Never mind I'm outta here!!!

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know sol.....

You sort of sidestepped that last question based on my typo.

DM has never been show to exist or release a single positron here on Earth, so what makes you think it exists and does that "out in space" somewhere?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ahhh, nut case. Never mind I'm outta here!!!

Sure, you guys are peddling three forms of invisible metaphysical buddies, and *I'm* the nutcase.

 

[sol invictus]

You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope. The most you could demonstrate is "missing mass".

You're totally wrong as always, but in this case it doesn't matter. Many - perhaps all - of the theories we're discussing can be tested by future colliders, and some will be by the LHC.

The problem is you never demonstrated that DM exists or that it emits positrons! You simply *assumed* both of these things.

That's the way science works, Michael. What was the very first step in the scientific method as it was taught to you in grade school? I'll remind you: formulate a hypothesis.

Huh? Just because you don't know where they come from, that's not evidence that they come from "dark matter".

That is not a response to my comment. Please read it again.

Positrons are clearly involved in ordinary matter

What? No they're not.

and the sun emits wavelengths consistent with matter/antimatter annihilation.

What??

What's the need for 'dark matter' when there are billions of known sources for positron/electron annihilation that are already identified?

We're talking about excess positrons. But anyway, the reason is the known sources don't add up to enough to explain the data.

No. My rules are the rules of empirical science. Answer that same question I posed earlier about Michael's new theory. Do we also have evidence of God?

As far as I can tell, you're simply insane. Nothing you say makes sense to anyone else. That's a good sign you're crazy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're totally wrong as always, but in this case it doesn't matter. Many - perhaps all - of the theories we're discussing can be tested by future colliders, and some will be by the LHC.

Oddly enough we both agree that these would be legitimate "experiments" that could actually "test" such a theory. Of course by that logic it's been "tested" by other collider experiments too and so far - nothing.

That's the way science works, Michael. What was the very first step in the scientific method as it was taught to you in grade school? I'll remind you: formulate a hypothesis.

So by your logic, you God theory is also a great example of the "scientific method" in action, and we now have evidence of God?

What? No they're not.

Really? It's just a fluke that they are able to form subatomic particles with them (and electrons) in the lab?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

What??

Oh for crying out loud.....
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-...quest-id=95cf3135-0485-4213-9c8e-e8a01297d0d8

 

[Reality Check]

You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope. The most you could demonstrate is "missing mass".

Scientists can demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence they have collected from telescopes.

As you have been told several times and are persistently ignoring: they observe colliding galactic clusters and see that there are two kinds of matter there. One kind is matter that interacts strongly, i.e. normal matter. Another kind is is not interacting much (if at all), i.e. dark matter.
If you want to continue this discussion then it should be in the previous thread where you stated this "missing matter" stuff.

 

[Reality Check]

Sure, you guys are peddling three forms of invisible metaphysical buddies, and *I'm* the nutcase.

We guys are pedding 2 scientific obsersverations (dark matter and dark energy) and a scientific theory that matches observations (inflation).
You are the nutcase whose idea explicitly violates the laws of themodynamics. For those unaware of the non-science in his idea have a look at the list of outstanding questions for Michael Mozina in the "Electric Universe theories here" thread.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm willing to "wait and see" what the future holds, but I have no reason to believe that exotic forms of matter exist in the first place, I have no reason to believe it emits gamma rays, and I have no reason to believe it collects near the center of galaxies.

You don't believe in the existence of exotic forms of matter?
Not the lambda particle?
Not the eta meson or the J/psi?
Not the tau lepton?
Not positronium or muonium?
How about antihydrogen?
¹⁰He, ¹¹Li?

 

[sol invictus]

Oddly enough we both agree that these would be legitimate "experiments" that could actually "test" such a theory. Of course by that logic it's been "tested" by other collider experiments too and so far - nothing.

Nope, they haven't been tested.

So by your logic, you God theory is also a great example of the "scientific method" in action, and we now have evidence of God?

What?

Really? It's just a fluke that they are able to form subatomic particles with them (and electrons) in the lab?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

What?

Oh for crying out loud.....
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-...quest-id=95cf3135-0485-4213-9c8e-e8a01297d0d8

Which has to do with this topic.... how?

 

[Reality Check]

So by your logic, you God theory is also a great example of the "scientific method" in action, and we now have evidence of God?

Actually it is your logic that by replacing the phrase "dark matter" with the word "God" the scientific method states that the evidence of dark matter is evidence of God.
I do not know the name for this logical fallacy but it is a very bad one. You can replace the phrase "dark matter" with anything and get the same result, e.g. there is evidence for "Alffsrwbhv"!
Your post was:

Let A be "God", B be "God emits positrons", and C be "God emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.

If D, then E. E is observed. Is D a valid theory?

• Let A be "Alffsrwbhv", B be "Alffsrwbhv emits positrons", and C be "Alffsrwbhv emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.
• Let A be "rock", B be "rock emits positrons", and C be "rock emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.
• Let A be "Michael Mozina", B be "Michael Mozina emits positrons", and C be "Michael Mozina emits them in space". Let D be "Michael's new theory". Let E be gamma ray emissions in space.
• etc.

 

[Humanzee]

Is this about the scientific method or just DM? If its about DM then what is it that bothers you so much MM? It seems to me scientists are trying to find the answer to what appears to be a large amount of missing mass in the universe. How can this looking be wrong?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is this about the scientific method or just DM?

Evidently it's about DM. There's nothing wrong with the scientific method, just the fact that astronomers skirt around it.

If its about DM then what is it that bothers you so much MM? It seems to me scientists are trying to find the answer to what appears to be a large amount of missing mass in the universe. How can this looking be wrong?

IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with noticing that we have a "missing mass" problem. There's a lot wrong with trying to stuff those gaps with metaphysical band-aids however.

FYI, I didn't actually have any trouble with the way "dark matter" was presented to me in school (mainly a MACHO orientation). It's only recently that astronomers have started making up exotic and unsupported "properties" of DM in a purely ad hoc manner. Today's "new and improved" DM does magic tricks. It evidently passes right through normal matter. It supposedly emits gamma rays when it feels like it. It now supposedly has a 'half life". There simply no end to the ad hoc properties they now assign to DM. As long as they can simply "make up" whatever property they like, and never have to demonstrate it empirically, they can point at the sky and claim "my new made up property of DM did it". Anything and everything observed in space is now being used as supporting evidence of some exotic property of "dark matter". Baloney.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually it is your logic that by replacing the phrase "dark matter" with the word "God" the scientific method states that the evidence of dark matter is evidence of God.

I used exactly the same logic you did! I took an ordinary observation and turned it into "evidence" of whatever I want.

I do not know the name for this logical fallacy but it is a very bad one.

I already told you the name of the fallacy. It's called "affirming the consequent". You're right, it's a "bad" one.

You can replace the phrase "dark matter" with anything and get the same result, e.g. there is evidence for "Alffsrwbhv"!

Gah! That's my whole point!