Dark Matter

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:23 pm

Harry,

I admit it leans toward speculative science and time will tell if its validity holds up.

If you weren't aware of the difference between true science and speculative science, speculative science is just beyond the borders of established theory, a place which the facts seem to point but whose existence cannot yet be proven. True science is based on the compilations of the speculative, where all theories all meet in agreement. Your vision of a recycled universe is still well set in the speculative stage, similar to some of those "Life on Mars" web sites I referred to, that overly gratuitous form of speculative science that will be sure to fail when compared to the structures of other theories.

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:41 pm

Well said Bilderback, sometimes it can be hard for non-scientists to see the difference between speculation and real science (not partly due to the crazy articles sometimes seen in new scientist and scientific american which can make speculation appear like real science).

DogsHead · Post by **DogsHead** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:01 pm

Hmmm. Interesting. Am I right in thinking then that a prediction may be that we should see these lensing effects in the extreme deep field images?

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:09 pm

nickwright wrote:Well said Bilderback, sometimes it can be hard for non-scientists to see the difference between speculation and real science (not partly due to the crazy articles sometimes seen in new scientist and scientific american which can make speculation appear like real science).

I thought I was the only one that noticed that Scientific American was drifting to garbage science!

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:14 pm

do you guys get new scientist over in the states? its worse then sci-am, full of crazy black-hole in a teacup articles every week. no-wonder people believe all these crazy things!

gordhaddow · Post by **gordhaddow** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:24 pm

Hey, the whole credo for tenure has always been 'publish, publish, publish'. And if you don't have anything to contribute within the 'mainstream', and you can't write fiction effectively, you need an outlet for something you can shoot out in a short time with little effort.

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:30 pm

I don't think many people in the academic community would hand much grace to these sort of articles, sure they're useful for getting your name out there and publicising your results or ideas, but they're never going to contribute to your list of published papers, only properly refereed papers will only ever count in that sense.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:01 am

gordhaddow wrote:Hey, the whole credo for tenure has always been 'publish, publish, publish'. And if you don't have anything to contribute within the 'mainstream', and you can't write fiction effectively, you need an outlet for something you can shoot out in a short time with little effort.

Excellently stated my good man. Cheers to you.

I have emailed SA on their polluting the media with pseudo science - no reply.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:18 am

Empeada your right in what you say.

And they should continue the reaseach regardless if its boring to me.
And your right about the open mind.
Sometimes I close it.
I'm my worst ememy sometimes.

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:18 am

It's not always easy to keep an open mind, when your mind bubbles with lots of contrdictory theories. As Science progresses, there are always some theories, which sit on the very fringe of proven fact and unproven fiction.

And when you goto experts, (not being negative) but they can not come up with satisfactory explaination or the explaination that satisfies you. We live in a complex world. It's like going to Doctor with high fever and he tells you to take panadol before turning to antibiotic.

Hope you understand my screwed up logic.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:24 am

Most of the science of the "Greater Universe" is still in the speculative stage, there just is not definitive evidence for any or all theories in place. Black Holes may not be a singularity or even a small object, they could be the product of a space/time/gravity lens distorting what we can see from Earth. That brings us back to the original question of: is exotic dark matter causing an expansion of the universe or is the perceived expansion merely a distortion caused by lensing or relativity factors?

The reason I bring this up is almost every theory has some sort of problem with time, placement, and red shift. I think there has to be a simpler explanation than exotic dark matter, the rate of time slowing and the other speculative factors to explain theoretic inconsistencies.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:17 am

Hello Bilderback

What type of expansion are you talking about?
The Universe or the lensing effect.

As for Black Holes we can only quess whats going on.

But! we can assume there must a high density matter an unkown singularity.

And assume that Black Holes are part of a recycling process.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:39 am

The expansion and acceleration of the universe theory is a derivative of the red shift, age, temperature, % hydrogen, and location of galaxies and galactic clusters. Light emitted from sources closer to the point of vector conjunction are red shifted, light sources farthest from the vector conjunction are blue shifted. The average matter/space density rises in proportion to the red shift. Suppose the "space/matter" density was responsible for the red shift and "not" the speed of the light source. Maybe the universe is not expanding as most all of the evidence infers.

The make up of a Black Hole is nearly 100% speculation.

Anything can be assumed, an assumption is speculation (a guess) and is far different than a fact. It is not until all speculations converge to the point of removing reasonable doubt that is something considered a fact. There are no "facts" pertaining to the makeup of a black hole. The universe being recycled via black holes is an assumption, that assumption is not supported by most of the observation listed above meaning it is most likely a wrong guess.
If you feel the need to convince me that your theory has validity, you'll have to show why your theory does a better job at supporting the observation listed in the first paragraph.

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:20 am

Read this....How do they measure this kinda time?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... khole.html

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:09 pm

I guess they can't measure that sort of time!

I think the time period quoted comes from a theoretical calculation, and obviously too brief to be measured. whether it counts as a black hole is for the theorists to argue over.

anyone see the cool APOD on the pluto mission launch a few days ago?

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:52 pm

The time duration is measured by the collection of particles and energy in the detectors that are meters in length, reverse engineering the collision can reveal what happened and when.

Black Hole? I don't think so. It is speculation that the particles they expected to see were re-absorbed and given of as heat. It's more probable that a different set of events would explain the outcome.

kovil · Post by **kovil** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:41 pm

Mr Bilderbeck I must compliment you on having a writing style that incites an argument.

In discussing this matter, it seems to me that you have some conceptions that you assume, by the way you express your statements.

one is; that the universe is expanding.

What if the universe in NOT EXPANDING.

How would you then take that side of the debate, for the team, and reinterpret the data we have from observation, and construct a theory of the universe and its history?

I think this would be a good learning exercise and lead to a more enlightened positon and perspective for you. Then having investigated both sides of the question, you would be free of your present narrower viewpoint, and have the ability to choose the path of TRUTH to find the real answer.

====

For myself, Dark Matter is an attempt to account for observational objections to our present theories, or theory.

I would rather list the problems with present theory, than to invent some mechanism to make the theory work.

Dark Matter is an interesting idea, but I am not fond of it as it smacks of bad-science, and I mean by that, by accepting it and making everyone else disprove it before considering anything else to have equal validity of explanation.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:34 am

Kovil stated:

First let me appologise to Mr Bilderback, as I was angry and condescending in my last post. I must have read some of your posts that were written in haste as you did not explain things to my liking. Since then I have read several of your posts that are good. I was hasty in my judgement! Sorry.

Very good apology - thank you.

My "Hasty" remarks were only to put the discussion back on a scientific track. Your ideas fall in line with mine; I do not like the concept of dark matter, I think there maybe a simpler explanation to the appearance of the universe expanding. I think I stated somewhere that "mathematicians invented exotic dark matter".

There is speculative science being published supported by three observations and no mention to the six that refute it - I do not want to see the propagation of bad science.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:35 am

Just sitting on the fence,,,,,,,,looking at the stars,,,,,,,,,,,,niceeeee

Oh! yes i agree with Bilderback

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:04 am

Science has now progressed to a fringe, where lies absolute truth or new confusion. With relativity, gravity, quantam physics expianing almost everything of the known, albeit with few paradoxes. New radio and telcsopic astronmy has broken a lot of new grounds, with few challanges to the theories. The word big bang was coined by Fred Hoyle in an interview, more to moke big bang theory than anything else. But the word prevailed.

But, more of our studies and theories were based on what was known. Now that it has reached a stage were we have to explore unknown, it is becoming harder and that's were experts come up with Dark Matter.

Wether we know it all in our life time or not, I am not certain but, secrets of tachyons will be known to us tyrdyons atleast after life.

So smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Harry

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:44 am

What if the universe in NOT EXPANDING.

How would you then take that side of the debate, for the team, and reinterpret the data we have from observation, and construct a theory of the universe and its history?

I think this would be a good learning exercise and lead to a more enlightened positon and perspective for you. Then having investigated both sides of the question, you would be free of your present narrower viewpoint, and have the ability to choose the path of TRUTH to find the real answer.

Wouldn't that be rather pointless, even as an exercise? That is terrible science. To waste time finding an explanation for the observations which fits your own personal view of how the universe should behave.

For a real cosmology chat site, try cosmo-coffee: http://cosmocoffee.info/

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:38 am

nickwright wrote:To waste time finding an explanation for the observations which fits your own personal view of how the universe should behave.

contrary to what you might think other people find that usefull. how much easier it is to add coriolis force to equations rather than rewrite them from a scratch for rotating earth, for example?

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:41 am

contrary to what you might think other people find that usefull. how much easier it is to add coriolis force to equations rather than rewrite them from a scratch for rotating earth

thats not the same though is it? i think you've missed my point.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:27 pm

What is your point?

nickwright · Post by **nickwright** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:52 am

that you're trying to proove a view that you arbitrarily hold, instead of analysing the evidence from an unbiased perspective, as real scientists should do