First steps after the Higgs Boson

[Buckeye]

Who said there is?

And how did you see this? Did you "detect" my words?

Secondly, did you post a rebuttal to all those papers (such as the bullet galaxy collision) that show evidence consistent to the presence of dark matter, before you claim that they lack evidence?

Zz.

Your writing above can be read such that you believe or claim instruments can detect waves and particles. Did I read wrong?

Why do I need to or should I attempt to refute (rebut) such papers in this discussion? That would truly be taking us far from the topic at hand, yes?

The absence of something (no matter in space), a negative condition, usually does not support the presence of something else - correct?

Dark Matter is still an idea. There are no compelling facts - especially not the collision of 2 galaxies.

Until only very recently astrophysicists did not claim that the outer universe is expanding faster, and did not claim that the edges of galaxies rotate faster than their centers. The evidence is all based on long range RF, IR and visible detections - Yes. A bit skimpy for me.

 

[ZapperZ]

What are your intentions, ZapperZ? How does this serve to further Buckeye's understanding of what Dark Matter is?

If you feel you can more properly explain things, please do. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to discuss topics unrelated to the OP or questions following thereafter.

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]

But you didn't answer my question. Are they the SAME thing?

Zz,.

Hi Z,
What is the purpose of that question?

 

[ZapperZ]

Your writing above can be read such that you believe or claim instruments can detect waves and particles. Did I read wrong?

Why do I need to or should I attempt to refute (rebut) such papers in this discussion? That would truly be taking us far from the topic at hand, yes?

The absence of something (no matter in space), a negative condition, usually does not support the presence of something else - correct?

Dark Matter is still an idea. There are no compelling facts - especially not the collision of 2 galaxies.

Until only very recently astrophysicists did not claim that the outer universe is expanding faster, and did not claim that the edges of galaxies rotate faster than their centers. The evidence is all based on long range RF, IR and visible detections - Yes. A bit skimpy for me.

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hi Z,
What is the purpose of that question?

It is to show you the fallacy of THIS:

What if the Higgs Boson is actually the equivalent of dark matter?

Or have you forgotten about this?

Zz.

 

[Buckeye]

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]

Please reveal the hard evidence of the existence of dark matter?

Define "hard evidence".

After you define it, show me an example of what you consider to be "hard evidence".

Zz.

 

[Buckeye]

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.

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]

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.

See above.

Zz.

 

[Buckeye]

Define "hard evidence".

After you define it, show me an example of what you consider to be "hard evidence".

Zz.

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]

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.

Er.. what is this an evidence of? And did you skip the "definition" part and went straight to the example?

Zz.

 

[Buckeye]

It is to show you the fallacy of THIS:
Or have you forgotten about this?

Zz.

Why does any level of fallacy exist in any question?
As scientists, we are here to ask questions, to develop new concepts, to refine old concepts, not to protect ideas, concepts that have out-lived their usefulness. Is that not why many are struggling to measure the Higgs - to refine the SM, or maybe to replace it albeit with time.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why does any level of fallacy exist in any question?

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]

Er.. what is this an evidence of? And did you skip the "definition" part and went straight to the example?

Zz.

I simply define what constitutes "valid hard evidence" in this case is clearly limited to dipole oscillation based measurements (all forms of light).

 

[Buckeye]

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.

I'm not much liking the words or thoughts or ideas that you claim I am thinking or might be possibly promoting. Isn't that a form of harassment, defamation? Why are you doing this in public?

 

[ZapperZ]

I simply define what constitutes "valid hard evidence" in this case is clearly limited to dipole oscillation based measurements (all forms of light).

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]

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.

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]

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.

Yeah... okay... and this supports your case how, exactly? Higgs = dark matter?

Zz.

 

[Buckeye]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Buckeye]

Yeah... okay... and this supports your case how, exactly? Higgs = dark matter?

Zz.

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]

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.

For me, it is strange to have a Mentor interact as you do, almost antagonistic. Why?

 

[1mmorta1]

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.

Regardless of your intentions sir, you have helped further confuse Buckeye.
I am not saying Dark Matter doesn't exist, I'm doing the opposite. I'm explaining to Buckeye that we can't pass DM around in a science class. Its not something where we pointed a "mass detector" (a concept Buckeye hinted at) at the sky and said,

"GEE WIZ LOOK! DARK MATTER!"

If you feel DM is so concrete, explain to me why you cannot tell me the spin of a fundamental particle of DM? Or perhaps the number of Valence electrons in an atom of DM(if it consists of atoms)?

Dark matter is a realization, a difference, just like 3 - 1. A term used to describe something we do not see, but the effects of which we witness. It isn't something we have any level of physical understanding of, the only thing we do "know" about dark matter is its total mass and the effect it has on the universe.

I am not undermining its evidence, I am not saying it doesn't exist. I know dark matter exists for the same reasons you do, and I am trying to explain it to Buckeye.

 

[ZapperZ]

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?

How do you know there are no "hard measurements"? After all, you can't define what "hard measurements" are!

You post a "question", but you don't care about the answer. I addressed this early on by the fact that a higgs boson has such a different physics than dark matter. And to consider them to be the same thing has no foundation on what we already know. Of course, if you are going to propose your own theory, then I'm sure you are fully aware of our Rules that you had agreed to.

So what IS the problem now?

If you wish to argue that there are ZERO evidence pointing towards the existence of dark matter, then you are contradicting many observational data that we already have.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0316

Ah, but of course, you left yourself some weasel room here, because you want, ... er... what do you call it, "hard evidence" or "hard measurement"! Since you refused to define what it is, any evidence that I can present can easily be dismissed as being not "hard enough".

This is a highly disingenuous way to "learn", if that is your intention. That's like someone asking for "hard evidence" for evolution, and then proclaiming that it isn't true because it lacks such evidence.

Zz.,

 

[1mmorta1]

For me, it is strange to have a Mentor interact as you do, almost antagonistic. Why?

I noted this as well.

 

[ZapperZ]

For me, it is strange to have a Mentor interact as you do, almost antagonistic. Why?

Antagonistic? I'm trying to pin you down to define something that you have been using. How is that "antagonistic"? Do you think that it isn't a fair question to ask you to explain what you mean?

Zz.

 

[1mmorta1]

Buckeye, to get back on the right track, you are(unfortunately) still looking at things from the wrong point of view. You accept gravity as being real, right?

There has never been an observation of a graviton though...

If you accept the rules governing gravity, then you must accept the evidence for dark matter.

Dark matter MUST exist for the universe to behave the way it does...call it whatever you want. It could be a bunch of space pixies with supermassive wings flying through the galaxy for all I care, the point is that there is SOMETHING with a lot of mass out there in the universe, and we don't see it.

This SOMETHING has been given the name "Dark Matter"