I listen and I reject. Sorry. Please support your claim re the discovery of additional normal matter explaining all the anomalies that saw the need for DM. What literature are you referring to? No one else has yet seen it. .....Just your opinion?? Good, but please make that clearer. That is just your opinion. At this time the general professional accepted opinion, as illustrated in many papers, see the need for DM to explain the anomalies.
Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
I listen and I reject. Sorry. Please support your claim re the discovery of additional normal matter explaining all the anomalies that saw the need for DM. What literature are you referring to? No one else has yet seen it. .....Just your opinion?? Good, but please make that clearer. That is just your opinion. At this time the general professional accepted opinion, as illustrated in many papers, see the need for DM to explain the anomalies.
Again, you can say that over and over again but it doesn't make it true. Nobody is claiming that these results can account for dark matter as required on the galactic, galaxy cluster, or cosmological level.
Or perhaps these "narratives" have evidence that you simply ignore.
Hi dmoe.....Just a quick comment: Science really does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory, even the overwhelmingly supported ones like the BB, SR and GR.
Theories can be falsified as observations increase and experiments improve, but while any theory continues to pass with flying colours, all tests thrown at it [like GR in recent times] they become more accepted and more certain of a correct description of reality....or at least as correct as can humanly possibly be. eg: The theory of evolution is considered to be beyond doubt.
...
---...
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
---...---
I think you can interpret "..." as concession.
On the Webernets, the best concession one can usually expect is silence.
I think you can interpret "..." as concession.
On the Webernets, the best concession one can usually expect is silence.
You are free, DaveC426913, to assume or presume to interpret "..." as concession.
But, alas, your assumption/presumption would be entirely erroneous.
My reply to paddoboy's puerile Posting simply signified that I acknowledged his childish Baiting and Trolling but exercised my Right as a Member of SciForums to heed the adage : " Do Not Feed The Trolls".
Please, DaveC426913, read Post #123, closely.
"does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory".
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your definition of trolling is fallacious. Disagreeing with someone - even very strongly - does not make them a troll.
I see no problem with that.
It is the proper response to your erroneous statement "general scientific community", has not yet accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter."
Your statement supposes there is a "Final determination" that has not yet been made. This is not true. There is generally no such thing as a Final determination" - as Paddoboy shows in his correction.
But I may be missing your point. So I do not make more assumptions, could you spell out what is logically wrong with Paddoboy's response to yours?
Last edited:
There is an inherent contradiction in your this new found parroting.
Read your last line and apply that to your this latest learning about theories. Do you see the contradiction?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is not a contradiction.
Theories are tested and tested. No amount of testing will - in principle - make it "true" - espcially since they are always being modified and updated. However, in practice, we have amassed a body of knowledge that is working, and allows us to build upon it.
I would suggest that, if you don't believe in the scientific method, you ask yourself what is powering the computer you are using, which was built on principles derived via TSM. You're certainly happy to avail yourself of the fruits of this thing you criticize.
No, no contradiction what so ever.....
Just an example of your own predicted anti science parroting actually.
My friend dmoe was wrong. I corrected him. If it was determined beyond all doubt, or as dmoe erroneously put it, "has not yet accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter"
Or as I like saying, scientific theories do grow in certainty over time...While the theory of evolution is regarded generally as beyond doubt, the subject of knowledge pertaining to it is not closed. We are adding to it all the time.
So matey, perhaps less parroting, and more thinking on your part?
It is not a contradiction.
Theories are tested and tested. No amount of testing will - in principle - make it "true" - espcially since they are always being modified and updated. However, in practice, we have amassed a body of knowledge that is working, and allows us to build upon it.
I would suggest that, if you don't believe in the scientific method, you ask yourself what is powering the computer you are using, which was built on principles derived via TSM. You're certainly happy to avail yourself of the fruits of this thing you criticize.
Pl reread his post till you decipher the contradiction.
And I do not criticize science.
I've given you the knowledge that you require, if you don't want to learn, OK.
And of course you criticise science, unfairly and unscientifically....By the way, nothing wrong with valid criticism, but plenty wrong with agenda based cynicism. But explain, why so why are so many of your threads re your pseudoscience claims are in the fringes?I've given you the knowledge that you require, if you don't want to learn, OK.
Why so many of your posts are cut and sent to different place ?
My science remains in the science sections: Your do not. Off topic posts and comments re trolls sometimes get moved, and that's OK by me.
Where have I stated or Posted that "Disagreeing with someone - even very strongly - does" ... "make them a troll" ?
You stated, DaveC426913, in your Post #113 : "TG, DMOE, you may certainly believe that there are other, better hypotheses, and that the studies done to-date have convinced you, but they have not convinced the general scientific community."
I responded, to you, DaveC426913, in my Post #115 : "I simply Posted some articles that clearly indicated that the, as you put it, "general scientific community", has not yet accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter."
paddoboy, chose to snipe by exhibiting his supreme extreme intellectual acuity in stating : "Science really does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory".
"...does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory"
Argue between yourselves if you so choose to.
Continue to presume and assume all you choose also.
Myself, I shall remain completely Objective as far as everything is concerned - Dark Matter is only theorized to exist - the Scientists that I work with are not all in agreement in any way as to its needed, probable or ever to be evidenced existence, Period.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, no response then.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Here:
You're still feigning coyness. Man up. Declare what you see wrong with that statement.
Who is saying anything otherwise?
(Please tell me you're not one of those people who say "It's only a theory.")
Last edited:
You "corrected" no one, paddoboy.
in response to Post #113 by DaveC426913, I stated : I simply Posted some articles that clearly indicated that the, as you put it, "general scientific community", has not yet accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter.
Then, paddoboy, in your Post #123 you attempted to create a Straw Man argument : "Hi dmoe.....Just a quick comment: Science really does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory, even the overwhelmingly supported ones like the BB, SR and GR."
paddoboy, I never stated, implied or in any way opined that "Science really does accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory, even the overwhelmingly supported ones like the BB, SR and GR."