Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.

[DaveC426913]

... 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."

Well, except here:

"general scientific community", has not yet accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter.

This is certainly intimating that there is such a thing as a Final determination - one that has not yet been made.

Paddoboy's comment is a direct correction of that.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Here:

You're still feigning coyness. Man up. Declare what you see wrong with that statement.

S I M P L E : "...does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory"
S I M P L E : " "scientific theory" as a determination on scientific theory"

Who is saying anything otherwise?

(Please tell me you're not one of those people who say "It's only a theory.")

...

 

[DaveC426913]

S I M P L E : "...does not accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory"
S I M P L E : " "scientific theory" as a determination on scientific theory"

Really? So you're nitpicking his words? Are you saying you were unable to parse the sentence and therefore it's invalid?

OK, I thought you had something substantial.

 

[DaveC426913]

...

This is a pooh-pooh fallacy. Pretending a point is not worthy of response.

I asked you a valid question. You claimed Dark Matter is only theorized to exist.

We're all saying that. So who is saying otherwise?

 

[paddoboy]

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.

The question here in fact and as denied by expletive deleted, is the need for DM. That has never been invalidated. We need DM to explain anomalies.

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."

Nup, no straw man. Just picking you up on an error, that's all.

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.

[First error] No scientific theory is ever final as apparently inferred by you with regards to DM.
[second error] The articles you posted in no way invalidated the need for DM, which was the science being discussed.

 

[paddoboy]

(Please tell me you're not one of those people who say "It's only a theory.")

I believe we have probably at least half a dozen with that belief, seriously!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

This is a pooh-pooh fallacy. Pretending a point is not worthy of response.

I asked you a valid question. You claimed Dark Matter is only theorized to exist.

We're all saying that. So who is saying otherwise?

The "..." was my response to your : " Who is saying anything otherwise?" and the :

"(Please tell me you're not one of those people who say "It's only a theory.")"

No pretending, DaveC426913, neither the disingenuous question nor the attempt to put words in my mouth were worthy of response.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

[First error] No scientific theory is ever final as apparently inferred by you with regards to DM.

No Error - "apparently inferred" is what you seem to have done, paddoboy!!
I stated, in my Post #115, in response to Post #113, by, DaveC426913 :
As a Scientist, I remain purely Objective...period.
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.
Nowhere in that Quote or Post did I state or claim anything about any "Theory".
Again, paddoboy, it is merely you attempting to create a Straw Man to argue against...and a poor attempt at that.

[second error] The articles you posted in no way invalidated the need for DM, which was the science being discussed.

Again : No Error - I neither stated, claimed, nor implied that any of the articles that I linked to "invalidated the need for DM,"...and the topic of this Thread was and still is "Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed".
The Linked articles were, and still are, simply articles that touch upon one of the unsettled mysteries of current Science, and that is whether or not Dark Matter actually exists, and if it is able to be or will ever be definitively evidenced.

 

[paddoboy]

No Error - "apparently inferred" is what you seem to have done, paddoboy!!

Not at all.....Since post 9, you have posted links, and seemingly made half hearted statements amongst your usual nonsense posts with ...
Your posts seem to reflect a position of being able to recognise the tiniest details, but in that effort, you fail in the larger picture.
As the old addage goes, you are apparently unable to see the woods because of the trees.
Let's look at this thread.....
I posted an article primarily concerning the failure to detect DM.
I posted many other articles concerned with the same problem, along with some speculation as to whether we are searching in the right places, or as yet, are just unable to detect it.
expletive deleted made some personal claims about the progress of DM research and that at this time the need for DM is not needed.
He was asked many times by at least three members including myself about any references to this paper/article.
As yet he either refuses, or is unable to comply, and no one else has seen the article/paper and the info that he is referring to.
The position at present is that DM is still needed to explain anomalous observations and has been supported with convincing evidence.

I stated, in my Post #115, in response to Post #113, by, DaveC426913 :
As a Scientist, I remain purely Objective...period.
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.
Nowhere in that Quote or Post did I state or claim anything about any "Theory".

Wrong: You inferred we have no final determination about or of DM.
I simply told you that in reality, there is never really any final determination in any theory, including DM.

Again, paddoboy, it is merely you attempting to create a Straw Man to argue against...and a poor attempt at that.

No strawman on my part, but certainly problems on your part that I can see, and that is evidenced here, elsewhere now and in the past.

Again : No Error - I neither stated, claimed, nor implied that any of the articles that I linked to "invalidated the need for DM,"...and the topic of this Thread was and still is "Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed".

Yep, I posted the OP, remember?

The Linked articles were, and still are, simply articles that touch upon one of the unsettled mysteries of current Science, and that is whether or not Dark Matter actually exists, and if it is able to be or will ever be definitively evidenced.

Agreed some doubt may exist, but the crux of the issue is that at this stage, DM is still needed to explain anomalous observations, as detailed in a couple of recent scientific papers already posted.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Not at all.....Since post 9, you have posted links, and seemingly made half hearted statements amongst your usual nonsense posts with ...

Your purely Subjective personal opinion, paddoboy. And the usual Ad Hominem.

Your posts seem to reflect a position of being able to recognise the tiniest details, but in that effort, you fail in the larger picture.
As the old addage goes, you are apparently unable to see the woods because of the trees.

Again...a purely Subjective personal opinion, paddoboy. And more of the usual Ad Hominem.
In reference to "tiniest details" : is it at all possible that you are referring to the "old adage(single "d")" about someone being "unable to see the forest for the trees"?

Let's look at this thread.....
I posted an article primarily concerning the failure to detect DM.
I posted many other articles concerned with the same problem, along with some speculation as to whether we are searching in the right places, or as yet, are just unable to detect it.
expletive deleted made some personal claims about the progress of DM research and that at this time the need for DM is not needed.
He was asked many times by at least three members including myself about any references to this paper/article.
As yet he either refuses, or is unable to comply, and no one else has seen the article/paper and the info that he is referring to.
The position at present is that DM is still needed to explain anomalous observations and has been supported with convincing evidence.
Wrong: You inferred we have no final determination about or of DM.

paddoboy, your consistent misuse the words "infer" and "inferred" is getting old. I neither "inferred", nor implied that "we have no final determination about or of DM."
As a matter of fact, paddoboy, I clearly and succinctly 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."
***NOTE*** ...never did I make use of the word "theory"!
I stated such because, in reality, Real Scientists conducting Real Science, paddoboy, (not the "we" you claim to speak for or represent?) have, as yet, not accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter.
At this point in the discussion, it would seem that the onus is on you, paddoboy, to produce or cite any evidence you have that Real Science has indeed made any such "final determination about or of DM."

I simply told you that in reality, there is never really any final determination in any theory, including DM.
No strawman on my part, but certainly problems on your part that I can see, and that is evidenced here, elsewhere now and in the past.

Again, paddoboy, I never stated or Posted anything about "any final determination in any theory, including DM."
Re read my Posts, paddoboy, I have never Stated, Claimed, Posted, "inferred(sic)" nor implied that "there is ... any final determination in any theory, including DM."
Ergo - it is simply a seemingly severely dishonest ploy on your part, paddoboy, to erect a Straw Man argument, period.

Yep, I posted the OP, remember?
Agreed some doubt may exist, but the crux of the issue is that at this stage, DM is still needed to explain anomalous observations, as detailed in a couple of recent scientific papers already posted.

Again, your purely Subjective viewpoint, paddoboy! (with of course, your childish "emoji"!)

And, again, as a Scientist, I must remain purely Objective.

In being purely Objective, paddoboy, I find that there is no good reason for you to be constantly creating arguments where none actually exist.

 

[DaveC426913]

The "..." was my response to your : " Who is saying anything otherwise?"

It is a perfectly valid question, without any trolling or other form of criticism.

It shows that, despite your say-so, you certainly employ "..." when you have no valid response to a perfectly valid comment. You're done that twice now - once to Pad, once to me.

I'll ask again:
You claimed Dark Matter is only theorized to exist. We all agree that it is a theory. Why state what we all agree on, as if you've made a case?

"(Please tell me you're not one of those people who say "It's only a theory.")"
No pretending, DaveC426913, neither the disingenuous question nor the attempt to put words in my mouth were worthy of response.

You did, in actuality, say:

Myself, I shall remain completely Objective as far as everything is concerned - Dark Matter is only theorized to exist

So: Dark Matter is one contending theory to explain some observational phenomena.

Are we all agreed? Does anyone disagree?

 

[origin]

Are we all agreed? Does anyone disagree?

First I am afraid that it is inconceivable that you could get this crew to agree on anything.

We have a very good theory of gravity that matches observations and experimentation. If you do not like GR then go with Newtonian they both work rather well outside of extreme cases.

We have observational evidence that indicates that galactic rotation and the interaction of galaxies do not act as would be expected with the amount of matter that can be seen. It appears that there is much more matter that is spread out in the galaxies.

So we are left with at least 2 possibilities. One possiblity is that there is simply matter that we cannot see (dark matter). A LOT of dark matter, not just dust or a multitude of failed stars. Another possibility is that there is an aspect of gravity that is yet to be discovered.

It seem most likely that dark matter is the culprit. If it was gravity it would seem that with our ability to finely measure gravity we would get some hint that at long range gravity acts differently. It is also hard to believe that a 1/r^2 changes to 1/r at long range; geometrically it does not make sense.

It may turn out that gravity is a much stranger beast than we suspect, I think it is unlikely, but it is certainly possible.

I think it is safe to say that everyone will disagree with this.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

It is a perfectly valid question, without any trolling or other form of criticism.
It shows that, despite your say-so, you certainly employ "..." when you have no valid response to a perfectly valid comment. You're done that twice now - once to Pad, once to me.

I must say, DaveC426913, that I Posted "..." in response to, what seemed to me to be a rhetorical question posed by you, : " Who is saying anything otherwise?"
Since there did not seem to me to be anyone "...saying anything otherwise...", if it was not simply rhetoric on your part, DaveC426913, then, indeed, there was no good reason to give that improbable line of contention any more weight that it obviously did not deserve.

I'll ask again:
You claimed Dark Matter is only theorized to exist. We all agree that it is a theory. Why state what we all agree on, as if you've made a case?

I made the "Statement" : "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.".
It was made in response to your erroneous backing of paddoboy's attempted Straw Man argument that I had in some way said something to the effect 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."
Again, DaveC426913, if you care to re read my Posts, you will find that in all actuality and Reality that I did not use the word "theory", when I succinctly "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."

You did, in actuality, say:
So: Dark Matter is one contending theory to explain some observational phenomena.

Are we all agreed? Does anyone disagree?

At the risk of being accused of unnecessarily replying to what appears to be just more rhetoric - I will provide a "quote" by a rather persistent Member :
"We all agree that it is a theory. Why state what we all agree on, as if you've made a case?"

 

[DaveC426913]

I must say, DaveC426913, that I Posted "..." in response to, what seemed to me to be a rhetorical question posed by you, : " Who is saying anything otherwise?"
Since there did not seem to me to be anyone "...saying anything otherwise...", if it was not simply rhetoric on your part, DaveC426913, then, indeed, there was no good reason to give that improbable line of contention any more weight that it obviously did not deserve.

Then you would have had little reason to use it to reject Paddoboy's post.

paddoboy's attempted Straw Man argument that I had in some way said something to the effect that "Science really does"..."accept any "scientific theory" as a final determination on DM nor any other scientific theory,

You are misconstruing what Pad was correcting. He did not suggest that you said "...science really does accept..." There are multiple ways for your original statement to be in error.

Again, DaveC426913, if you care to re read my Posts,

I tend to stop after encountering the use of the word 'troll'. It is a certain sign the poster has lost objectivity. You'll understand if I mentally flag subsequent posts as suspect.

At the risk of being accused of unnecessarily replying to what appears to be just more rhetoric - I will provide a "quote" by a rather persistent Member :
"We all agree that it is a theory. Why state what we all agree on, as if you've made a case?"

Good. We're agreed.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

First I am afraid that it is inconceivable that you could get this crew to agree on anything.

We have a very good theory of gravity that matches observations and experimentation. If you do not like GR then go with Newtonian they both work rather well outside of extreme cases.

We have observational evidence that indicates that galactic rotation and the interaction of galaxies do not act as would be expected with the amount of matter that can be seen. It appears that there is much more matter that is spread out in the galaxies.

So we are left with at least 2 possibilities. One possiblity is that there is simply matter that we cannot see (dark matter). A LOT of dark matter, not just dust or a multitude of failed stars. Another possibility is that there is an aspect of gravity that is yet to be discovered.

It seem most likely that dark matter is the culprit. If it was gravity it would seem that with our ability to finely measure gravity we would get some hint that at long range gravity acts differently. It is also hard to believe that a 1/r^2 changes to 1/r at long range; geometrically it does not make sense.

It may turn out that gravity is a much stranger beast than we suspect, I think it is unlikely, but it is certainly possible.

I think it is safe to say that everyone will disagree with this.

I can only "disagree" with your final statement, origin : "I think it is safe to say that everyone will disagree with this."

I can only concur with the rest of your Post.
There is currently no broad consensus on the whole Dark Matter matter(!?).

There is, however, quite a bit of varied speculations and hypotheses being 'floated' in several Scientific 'circles'...I shall provide a few Links to some of these "ponderings" (?) :
- http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2013/06/dark-matter/
- http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219814000033
- http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/is-dark-matter-just-us-being-wrong-about-gravity
- http://www.psc.edu/science/Ostriker/ostriker.html
I Post these Links solely to assist any truly interested Member in further research on the subject of this discussion.

As I have stated previously, as a Scientist, I must remain Objective...so I continue to research and study all the aspects of the issue.
I can only ask, that no Member "assumes", "presumes", "misinterprets" nor "infers" that any of the Links Posted reflect anything other than my purely Honest and Humble attempt to present a balanced and Objective mix of the varied current views on the Dark Matter 'issue'.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Then you would have had little reason to use it to reject Paddoboy's post.

You are misconstruing what Pad was correcting. He did not suggest that you said "...science really does accept..." There are multiple ways for your original statement to be in error.

I tend to stop after encountering the use of the word 'troll'. It is a certain sign the poster has lost objectivity. You'll understand if I mentally flag subsequent posts as suspect.

Good. We're agreed.

- In this instance I will proffer this explanation: I am responding to you Post #155, DaveC426913, with the following " ... ", to signify that I have read said Post in it's entirety, and see no reason to respond to any of its content with anything other than "acknowledgement" that I did, indeed, read it, in it's entirety. -
...

 

[paddoboy]

As I have stated previously, as a Scientist, I must remain Objective...so I continue to research and study all the aspects of the issue.

I certainly question those claims, and I suggest anyway, that your peers on this forum will be the best judges of your objectivity or otherwise.


I simply told you that in reality, there is never really any final determination in any theory, including DM.
No strawman on my part, but certainly problems on your part that I can see, and that is evidenced here, elsewhere now and in the past.
DM is some form is needed to explain the anomalous effects that we see.
That is the crux of the matter.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I certainly question those claims,

What is there to question, paddoboy?

and I suggest anyway, that your peers on this forum will be the best judges of your objectivity or otherwise.

Suggest away, but in all actuality and reality, none of the referenced "peers on this forum", if they include yourself, paddoboy, are, indeed, my "peers".
Nor are you or they qualified to make any relevant judgement of my Scientific "objectivity or otherwise".

I simply told you that in reality, there is never really any final determination in any theory, including DM.

Again, paddoboy, I neither claimed, stated, implied nor "inferred"(sic) : "that in reality, there is"... "ever really any final determination in any theory, including DM."
Ergo, there was no good reason for you to "simply" tell me anything along those lines, period.
Other than, of course, a "simply" puerile attempt to erect a Straw Man argument.

No strawman on my part, but certainly problems on your part that I can see, and that is evidenced here, elsewhere now and in the past.

Unless you care to elicit said "problems", paddoboy, that you "can see, and that is evidenced here, elsewhere now and in the past", then you are just Posting an Ad Hominem attack.

DM is some form is needed to explain the anomalous effects that we see.
That is the crux of the matter.

That is your Subjective opinion, paddoboy.
And while it is true that that opinion is shared by some in the Real Scientific community - it is by no means the only opinion.
And, to be sure, paddoboy, what you subjectively opine as, define as or describe as "the crux of the matter" is just that...your own Subjective opinion, definition or description.

paddoboy, I see no reason to engage in any further "discussions" brought about by your personal "problems" with my presence on SciForums.

 

[paddoboy]

That is your Subjective opinion, paddoboy.

No, it is fact that at this time the general consensus of opinion is that DM is needed to explain the anomalous observations we see.

And while it is true that that opinion is shared by some in the Real Scientific community - it is by no means the only opinion.

I never said it was the only opinion. I said the generally held scientific opinion, is that DM is there as evidenced, in some form or other, and that it is most certainly required to explain the effects we see.
The alternative is that our prime theory of gravity is grossly wrong, and while some also believe that to be the case, that opinion is not generally held.

And, to be sure, paddoboy, what you subjectively opine as, define as or describe as "the crux of the matter" is just that...your own Subjective opinion, definition or description.

You can opine and whatever you like, you have yet to show me any link, nor anyone else, that says we do not need DM to explain said anomalous effects.

paddoboy, I see no reason to engage in any further "discussions" brought about by your personal "problems" with my presence on SciForums.

I have no personal problems my friend. although the forum does have evidence of your own personal problems with myself particularly, and with others including mods, in the number of threads you have started about me in particular and that are now in cesspool.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless you care to elicit said "problems", paddoboy, that you "can see, and that is evidenced here, elsewhere now and in the past", then you are just Posting an Ad Hominem attack.

Point of order:
That's not what an ad hom is. Criticism is not in-and-of-itself an ad hom.

Pad is criticizing your (alleged) inability to follow the discussion. If true, that would certainly be a relevant complaint to your contribution to the discussion.

An ad hom is an attempt to deflect the topic of discussion by attacking a property which is irrelevant to the discussion - eg. "you don't know what 'elicit' means therefore how can you have a considered view on physics?".

Why don't we all just stick to the thread topic?