Author: Dan Homan
Date: 06:10:56 11/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 1999 at 02:04:09, KarinsDad wrote: >Eelco, > >Not to belabor this a lot, but the entire issue is one of 90 to 99% of "matter" >is dark matter (according to the theorists). However, it only affects two known >light phenomena in space out of dozens (and only one of these is via fairly >direct gravitational effect, the other is pure mathematics based on a theory). >For example, scientists cannot find out if neutrinos have mass at all, but >consider them to be a main candidate for some major fraction of dark matter. >Does it not seem strange that scientists can measure the mass of a proton, but >not the mass of a neutrino when neutrinos should outnumber (in quantity) normal >protons by a billion to one? One would think that if there are so many of them, >that the mass could be measured via quantity somehow. > >The entire thing is just an attempt to keep the big bang theory (or even the >inflationary universe theory) alive (via mathematics) and to give people >something to write their PhD thesis' on in physics. It is extremely difficult to >remove a theory that held sway for such a long time. Look how long it took for >the solid state theory to go away. > >If you are interested, you can read the following web page on dark matter and >mysticism. It will show you the level at which people will believe almost >anything (even PhDs). > >http://www.thuntek.net/sumeria/cosmo/darkmatter.html > >Finally, consider the following. If scientists are merely deluded into thinking >that the universe is really expanding (similar to how scientists one day thought >the earth was flat or the center of the universe), then if the universe is not >really expanding (just appears to be expanding), then dark matter (and the big >bang theory) is a total sham based on a false premise. In our arrogance, could >it be that we have created the 20th century version of the flat earth theory? > >KarinsDad :) > >PS. I haven't had a good off topic discusion since I became moderator. I felt >like loosening my collar for a change. I used to post a few off topics a month. > >PSS. Although dark matter theories have been around for years, the quantity of >dark matter is not only an estimate, but that estimate has been changing every >time they come up with a different size of the universe (which probably doesn't >have a set size, or at least not a measurable one). This is what I meant by >bleeding edge in my previous message. The theory changes everytime a >technological advance puts a better telescope up. As an active astrophysist, I'd like to chip in here at the danger of extending this off-topic thread. There is a *lot* of misinformation in your post.... I don't want to go point by point because that really will not accomplish anything. Rather, let me point out that the standard news media (and the web is the worst) are very poor at presenting a clear picture of the current state of knowledge in most scientific fields. Astrophysics seems to suffer as badly as any from this problem. In essence, the news reports (usually incorrectly) the exciting new breakthroughs, which by their very nature (of being new) have a good chance of being wrong in some way. The news does not report it when additional supporting evidence for a well known theory is found (except if Einstein wrote the theory). The news does not report it when an previous exciting discovery is proven to be partially or totally mistaken. This is very frusterating to those of us working in astrophysics, because not only is the public badly informed by this kind of reporting, but they are also (incorrectly) given the impression that well established theories are constantly being overthrown by new discoveries. If you want some decent information about the state of the Big Bang theory and the evidence (both for and against), read a book by a well respected scientist... for example, Joseph Silk's "The Big Bang" is excellent, although it won't have some of the very newest stuff (depending on when the last revision was). - Dan
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.