- #36
Buckeye
- 165
- 2
ZapperZ said:1
...
2. there is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the evidence on the existence of dark matter based on pure ignorance.
...
Zz.
Please reveal the hard evidence of the existence of dark matter?
ZapperZ said:1
...
2. there is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the evidence on the existence of dark matter based on pure ignorance.
...
Zz.
Buckeye said:Please reveal the hard evidence of the existence of dark matter?
ZapperZ said:Yes, and now, they change their minds? Why is that? Because it came to them in a dream?! Or did they discover some evidence that is compelling enough to change their minds? Do you think physicists and cosmologists are flakey enough to change their minds this easily?
Zz.
Buckeye said:Once again:
What is the hard evidence?
Keep in mind that the same astrophysicists used to claim the outer edges of the universe and galaxies moved slower than the centers - right?
Have they simply re-interpreted their optical and RF and IR data?
I don't recall any satellites reaching the edge of the Milky Way and reporting back measurements with close proximity.
ZapperZ said:Define "hard evidence".
After you define it, show me an example of what you consider to be "hard evidence".
Zz.
Buckeye said:OK. A series of optically measured positions of stars with respect to the 0,0,0 of the Milky Way over years of time that lack any relativistic effects, and any light bending due to passing through the heliospheres of stars.
ZapperZ said:It is to show you the fallacy of THIS:
Or have you forgotten about this?
Zz.
Buckeye said:Why does any level of fallacy exist in any question?
ZapperZ said:Er.. what is this an evidence of? And did you skip the "definition" part and went straight to the example?
Zz.
ZapperZ said:It exists when one confuses something for something else.
In your case, you think that Fields and the source of the field are the same thing.
Zz.
Buckeye said:I simply define what constitutes "valid hard evidence" in this case is clearly limited to dipole oscillation based measurements (all forms of light).
ZapperZ said:It exists when one confuses something for something else.
In your case, you think that Fields and the source of the field are the same thing.
Zz.
Buckeye said:If we are allowed to conjecture what others think from now, then I pose that some people think that the electron really is a point-charge in space and that based on QED or QCD or QFT the electron, which constitutes 45% of the known universe, does not have or need to have any physical reality.
ZapperZ said:You did not. You gave an "example". Yet, you did not define what you consider as "hard evidence".
And what example is this? What is this an evidence of? Evidence that there is light? Evidence of the existence of dipole oscillation? And you use some astronomical evidence as an example of "hard evidence", ignoring the fact that I can stick an antenna in an RF cavity and get a way better degree of certainty on such a detection? What gives?
Zz.
Buckeye said:To validate the existence of dark matter we need hard evidence of the type I described to justify that dark matter (or maybe dark energy) is really at play in the motion or spatial distribution of galaxies in our universe.
ZapperZ said:Yeah... okay... and this supports your case how, exactly? Higgs = dark matter?
Zz.
ZapperZ said:But I don't know what "type". All I see is an example. If you ask me what I consider to be "hard evidence", and I say "Measurement of Tc of niobium", would you be able to decipher the "type" of evidence that I seek?
Zz.
ZapperZ said:1. the issue of dark matter was brought up in this thread.
2. there is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the evidence on the existence of dark matter based on pure ignorance.
3. you made the claim that it is merely a "thought", and thus, I question you on what really isn't a thought as far as making a detection goes.
I can also seriously question your intentions on here. It appears that there is an underlying agenda to skirt around our rules on speculative posts.
There is a difference between : (i) Hi, what is dark matter and how do we know there are evidence for it? versus (ii) Hi, dark matter is a myth. It is only a thought. It doesn't exist.
(i) is a valid discussion point.
(ii) isn't, and it isn't trying to learn.
Zz.
Buckeye said:You are the one trying to attribute words and ideas to what I write, and I was simply offering an idea or concept that you might hold near and dear which are based on mathematical-physics, not hard measurements.
All I have done is pose a question. Or is my grammar that bad, now that I'm 58?
Buckeye said:For me, it is strange to have a Mentor interact as you do, almost antagonistic. Why?
Buckeye said:For me, it is strange to have a Mentor interact as you do, almost antagonistic. Why?