God did not create the Universe

[Troublemane]

Nobody's ever touched a quark, seen one directly, held it in their hands, etc. either... hmm, at that rate, same with nearly all subatomic particles. Even the structure of the atom itself is still just a working theory. By your criteria, do you reject atomic science and quantum chromodynamics (and Q. electrodynamics) -- nearly all of it? I'd guess not, so maybe it's time to re-evaluate your opinion on this matter.

These are completely separate. Electrons are well established, are testable in any laboratory and can be measured by equipment. Anyone in the world can detect an electron. "Dark matter" is a name given to something which has never been detected directly, only inferred by the motions of galaxies.

Electrons were discovered independently of there needing to be a theory that they exist to explain something.

Is there any evidence of dark matter surrounding our own galaxy? If there were, you should expect to find the stars out near the rim moving faster and faster, right?...Is that what we see? Or do they seem to be moving more or less uniformly around the galactic core?

 

[PolyHedral]

A common mistake..

Really?

Is there any evidence of dark matter surrounding our own galaxy? If there were, you should expect to find the stars out near the rim moving faster and faster, right?...Is that what we see? Or do they seem to be moving more or less uniformly around the galactic core?

They're moving uniformly, and according to unmodified Newtonian gravity, this is is impossible. Hence, dark matter.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Really?.

You have difficulty with that concept?

Is Autodidact non subjective?

Or is she something more special for you?

They're moving uniformly, and according to unmodified Newtonian gravity, this is is impossible. Hence, dark matter.

That looks like you are quoting me...please add the name of the poster of the comment you respond to.

 

[Meow Mix]

These are completely separate. Electrons are well established, are testable in any laboratory and can be measured by equipment. Anyone in the world can detect an electron. "Dark matter" is a name given to something which has never been detected directly, only inferred by the motions of galaxies.

Electrons were discovered independently of there needing to be a theory that they exist to explain something.

Is there any evidence of dark matter surrounding our own galaxy? If there were, you should expect to find the stars out near the rim moving faster and faster, right?...Is that what we see? Or do they seem to be moving more or less uniformly around the galactic core?

Anyone in the world can also petition the local telescope powerful enough to aim at the bullet cluster and various other well-known and obvious evidences for dark matter.

Nobody's ever detected electrons directly either, they're an inference to explain phenomenon -- they're an interpretation. Nobody's ever detected the structure of the atom either, that's inferred also.

Also, in your last paragraph you perhaps knowingly express exactly the problem that dark matter explains: that uniform motion shouldn't be happening. Newtonian and relativistic mechanics work across light years and parsecs perfectly, but when we get to the galactic scale something is wrong -- something which dark matter succinctly explains. The alternative -- new large-scale physics such as MOND and TeVeS -- is unable to explain things like the nonluminous mass found in the bullet cluster.

Really, you're sort of just cherrypicking things that sound dubious to you. I understand it, but I'm saying it's not as well-placed as it could be in terms of skepticism. Dark matter is inferred in exactly the same way atomic structure is inferred, but I don't see you complaining about that.

 

[Troublemane]

Actually, there's a perfectly rational explanation for that one: Gas giants are easier to see.

That rather nicely sidestepped my point. I understand that larger gas giants are easier to detect, but why have they been so close to their parent star? One is closer than Mercury is to our Sun. This kinda blows the whole "gas giants are lighter thus form further out" hypothesis out of the sky.

Thus, demonstrating that scientists are fallible.

 

[Meow Mix]

That rather nicely sidestepped my point. I understand that larger gas giants are easier to detect, but why have they been so close to their parent star? One is closer than Mercury is to our Sun. This kinda blows the whole "gas giants are lighter thus form further out" hypothesis out of the sky.

Thus, demonstrating that scientists are fallible.

Scientists are fallible, but actually there are well-known mechanisms for the formation of hot superjupiters (as they're colloquially called); their orbits are typically unstable and they're often captured extremely close to their parent star in supercomputer simulations.

In fact I've toyed around with such a simulation at the school lab (I used to work there, setting up experiments for undergrads)... that and they have a really cool stochastic star generation program.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't get it. If scientists don't have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, why do they even bother trying to figure stuff out?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Actually, there's a perfectly rational explanation for that one: Gas giants are easier to see.

Plus of larger mass, which is easier to infer from gravitational effects (wobble) upon the target star's axis of rotation.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That rather nicely sidestepped my point. I understand that larger gas giants are easier to detect, but why have they been so close to their parent star? One is closer than Mercury is to our Sun. This kinda blows the whole "gas giants are lighter thus form further out" hypothesis out of the sky.

Thus, demonstrating that scientists are fallible.

They still formed farther out, it is the fate of most planetary systems with very hot stars and more than one large gas giant to have close orbital 'hot jupiters'..

This is the relevant paper

Hot Stars with Hot Jupiters Have High Obliquities

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I don't get it. If scientists don't have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, why do they even bother trying to figure stuff out?

Because it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness

 

[Troublemane]

Also, in your last paragraph you perhaps knowingly express exactly the problem that dark matter explains: that uniform motion shouldn't be happening. Newtonian and relativistic mechanics work across light years and parsecs perfectly, but when we get to the galactic scale something is wrong -- something which dark matter succinctly explains.

I am really suspicious of anyone saying they have a succinct answer for something which defies their model of the universe. If the theory is correct, it will predict the behavior. If it is NOT, then you see things happening differently from the theory. "Dark matter" was not predicted in the theory, It was made up when the facts diverged from the theory.

So in my opinion its a patch, to cover up the fact the theory is not workable (on the scale they are applying it on).

Really, you're sort of just cherrypicking things that sound dubious to you. I understand it, but I'm saying it's not as well-placed as it could be in terms of skepticism. Dark matter is inferred in exactly the same way atomic structure is inferred, but I don't see you complaining about that.

Is it really that important that I believe in some material which cannot be detected by any normal means, and has no bearing on my life one way or another? I mean, really, who cares if dark matter is real or not? Is it about convincing me, or is it about trying to silence me for daring to be skeptical?

 

[Meow Mix]

I am really suspicious of anyone saying they have a succinct answer for something which defies their model of the universe. If the theory is correct, it will predict the behavior. If it is NOT, then you see things happening differently from the theory. "Dark matter" was not predicted in the theory, It was made up when the facts diverged from the theory.

So in my opinion its a patch, to cover up the fact the theory is not workable (on the scale they are applying it on).

I think you're just failing to see that the same is done all the time, especially in particle physics, yet I don't see any skepticism from you on that.

Is it really that important that I believe in some material which cannot be detected by any normal means, and has no bearing on my life one way or another? I mean, really, who cares if dark matter is real or not? Is it about convincing me, or is it about trying to silence me for daring to be skeptical?

No, skepticism is good It doesn't matter that much, this is just a debate forum, so if there's a hair to split by golly I'm gonna split it.

 

[Autodidact]

post 474 says what can't be explained by science will not be explained by anything. Maybe the reason it can't be explained by science is because God can't be explained by science.

Maybe the reason God can't be explained by science is that He doesn't exist.

 

[Autodidact]

That rather nicely sidestepped my point. I understand that larger gas giants are easier to detect, but why have they been so close to their parent star? One is closer than Mercury is to our Sun. This kinda blows the whole "gas giants are lighter thus form further out" hypothesis out of the sky.

Thus, demonstrating that scientists are fallible.

Is there any controversy about this? It seems obvious to me.

Nevertheless, by using the scientific method, science itself becomes progressively more accurate and robust, and is the single best way we have to learn about the natural world.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Maybe the reason God can't be explained by science is that He doesn't exist.

Maybe..and maybe not.

 

[Skeptisch]

post 474 is crap...

Is all of it crap or can some of you agree with some of it?

“The way we think is greatly influenced by how our brains are wired. This allows some of us to believe that we can earn instant access to paradise and 72 virgins if only we blow ourselves to bits. It also allows others to believe in miracles and that praying will suspend the laws of nature”.

“These same laws of nature are all many scientists need and work with including Hawking and Mlodinow. These guys believe that the laws of nature (physics) can not be changed or suspended. They believe that science and the laws of nature will eventually explain most things and what can’t be explained by science will not be explained satisfactorily by anything”.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Is all of it crap or can some of you agree with some of it?

“The way we think is greatly influenced by how our brains are wired. This allows some of us to believe that we can earn instant access to paradise and 72 virgins if only we blow ourselves to bits. It also allows others to believe in miracles and that praying will suspend the laws of nature”.

“These same laws of nature are all many scientists need and work with including Hawking and Mlodinow. These guys believe that the laws of nature (physics) can not be changed or suspended. They believe that science and the laws of nature will eventually explain most things and what can’t be explained by science will not be explained satisfactorily by anything”.

Dont agree with either paragraph...certainly not on the empty speculations on the nature of human brain function.

The last paragraph is not an opinion held by anyone with any sense.

 

[painted wolf]

Dont agree with either paragraph...certainly not on the empty speculations on the nature of human brain function.

The last paragraph is not an opinion held by anyone with any sense.

What about what we do know about how brain chemistry affects brain function? People with schizophrenia for example have brain activity/function different from non-schizophrenics.

\

You don't see any connection between brain function and behavior?

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

What about what we do know about how brain chemistry affects brain function? People with schizophrenia for example have brain activity/function different from non-schizophrenics.

\

You don't see any connection between brain function and behavior?

wa:do

I am sure there is but I do not think there is any qualitive information that proves martyrs are 'hardwired' to be martyrs...they are usually poor disillusioned people...its socio economic.

 

[painted wolf]

I am sure there is but I do not think there is any qualitive information that proves martyrs are 'hardwired' to be martyrs...they are usually poor disillusioned people...its socio economic.

Behavior clearly isn't purely biological... socio-economic factors shape and reinforce behavior, but biology is the foundation and instigator.

Brain chemistry makes you hear voices... sociology determines if you hear angels/demons or aliens/spies... economics determines your treatment options.

wa:do