Shake

My layman's understanding of the whole thing is this: According to the big bang cosmology, there has to be a certain amount of matter in the Universe. Too little and it'd been even more empty space than it is today. Too much and the Universe would have long since collapsed back under its own gravity. Current theory then holds that there should be a certain amount of matter in the Universe, call it X, and all of the observable matter accounts for roughly 10% of X. This all hinges on our theories about gravity. Scientists are now speculating that neutrinos may have a very small mass, which would help a bit, but does not nearly close the huge gap between observed matter and the amount that theory says there should be. Masses of distant objects, be they black holes, individual stars, galaxies or even groups of galaxies, are inferred from the gravitational effects they have on surrounding objects. But even if we were wrong by 50% in our estimates, that still only brings you up to 15% of X. Dark matter, also sometimes referred to as cold dark matter, is theorized to make up the difference. But due to its' being dark, it is not easily observable.

Of course, if the Big Bang cosmology is not correct, and according to some reading I've been doing there really isn't any reason to suspect that its a better theory than a steady state cosmology (BB just has better PR), then that would require some great rethinking to how and why the Universe is the way it is. By the way, THIS is what I'm reading right now.

Wyz_sub10

Please check out my final post here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=44323

If a scientific connection is being made improperly, or the science used in an explanation is faulty, there is merit in addressing those connections and explanations for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the topic.

If this were a forum called "Science", this post may not have a home here. The "...& Skepticism" portion allows people to address many popular beliefs re: science and its application.

Is a biblical explanation of dark matter "scientific". Nope.

Is properly defining and explaining dark matter, so that lurkers may understand why it is not "scientific" part of what this forum is about? Yes.

The vast majority of discussions on S&S deal directly with issues, debates and new or challenging ideas in science. But if you've ever been to a bookstore and cringed at "Darwin on Trial" in the science section, then you know that the popular understanding of many scientific concepts is lacking.

If it is possible to clarify misunderstood concepts in this forum, then we should take the opportunity to do so, IMO.

Mr. Sammi

How hard is it to pin-point, energy which oscillates at a very fast rate AND changes itz characteristic as it oscillates. Now you see it but look for something else at where you think it may have moved.

This seems quite a complex particle, which in all probability, at that level one would have to address it as a particle, but also as a plural particle. Something like the many faces of Eve. Or Mimi-3-face. Not a joke because I expect to find things of this sort.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Friar Bellows

Pardon me, but that's bollocks. It may have been true back in the early days of cosmology, but it hasn't been true for decades. Steady state theory is ruled out by observations. The quasi-steady state models being pushed by a handful of astronomers today are an example of adding "epicycles on epicycles". Read here for some more:

Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models

eh

Mods, isn't there some kind of button you can press to send an electric shock to a user? It would be a lot easier than explaining why message particles are not alive, why dark matter has nothing to do with the bible, and other stupidity.

fando

eh, that's exactly what we need: a built-in Milgram's experiment!

Mr. Sammi

Eh,

seeing you know what dark matter is NOT, how about telling us what dark matter IS.

I guess you do not realise [deleted insult], by making those kinds of irresponsible claims. You lower your own standards...

What do you think about my postulation of what some kinds of dark matter may be?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Wyz_sub10

If there was such a god, I might very well pray for the button.

You can always ignore these posts, of course. But sometimes it helps to respond as if you are addressing an impartial third party, rather than the poster of the OP.

I've received PMs from people sincerely interested in this subject matter, but who have been taught to ignore all but what the bible teaches. These people lurk and wait for someone to throw a little "laymen light" on a very complicated subject to which they've had no exposure.

Shadowy Man

Well, if you really want to speculate about what dark matter might be, you could elaborate on what impact your suggestions of what dark matter might be would have on the current observations of the effects of dark matter, if you even know what those are.

For example, what impact would a "plural particle" have on weak lensing? Which part of a galaxy's rotation curve does the "Mimi-3-face" explain?

eh

I think you took my comments about the electric shock button to be directed at you. Relax, they weren't. I was referring to the way NightWatchman keeps jumping into threads like this with biblical nonsense.