Bad Science

That sucks. You can't get far enough with science.

 

WIMP... I wonder how long it took for them to come up with that one.

(no point to make here either, sorry )

 

This is just like explaining god. You have to make up a bunch of shit.

 

Dark Matter is where 'Science' Breaks down completley, it's the same with mathmatics. When broken down to the most complex we've achieved it breaks down. Stops following the rules which we Believe in E.g two positive numbers equalling to a minus number.

I'm really baffled on how dark matter could possibly be felt? is that capable? I thought black holes were supposedly made out of 'Black Matter' Which is also where science, and maths cannot explain how stars, etc dissapear into 'Black Holes' and such.

 

Invisible just means they don't reflect or emit light. Of course this makes finding evidence difficult, but certainly not impossible.

I personally see Dark Matter as a hole in commonly accepted gravity-universe theories. While these formulas appear to be accurate in the vast majority of what we can empirically observe, they also predict the universe to be much more massive than it currently is.

This leads to three possibilities:
1. We have overpredicted how matter the universe holds. Either the theory is off, or the data applied into the theory is off.

2. We have underestimated the mass of the known universe.

3. We are failing to take into account what we cannot yet observe easily with current technology, aka Dark Matter.

Both theories one and two were studied extensively, leaving three to be the most widespread belief. I also feel that you and national geographic have oversimplified the data collected in order to appeal to a less educated audience. Especially here, where it seems evident that the majority of the people lack even the fundamental knowledge to pursue any sort of intelligent discussion.

 

I agree with you if you mean that so-called "accepted" theories are given an overtly high amount of attention and take an unfair amount of evidence to be disproven. In part, this is indeed human nature acting somewhat against the fundamental practice of good science.

However, I have yet to see a "explain-everything" theory to not have large holes of its own. While the current theories do have discrepancies , the alternates arguably have even larger problems. I know in the past you have advocated for the Electric Universe theory, so I did look into it a bit more. Admittedly, finding definitive evidence on either side was pretty hard, as it isn't really considered mainstream science. http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

Either way, I'm not really here to spark another electric universe debate. I'm simply not educated enough to really advocate fairly from any side, and would most likely just rip evidence from people who know better than I do. I think I understand your point about the poor application of Occam's razor; alternatively, I'd also suggest that you might be investing yourself too deeply in the alternative theories, while overlooking their own discrepancies.

 

If contradiction exists, then clearly there's a 'breakdown' in the mechanics its self? Explain how something can be fully correct, if theres contradiction. If it's wrong because it has contradiction then it would be a 'Breakdown'

I do realize, im not too advanced in higher level maths, and science. But i still like to discuss and debate.

 

So WIMPs are a whim of state funded (bad) scientists that are out to enrich themselves by doing not-a-lot. Conclusion based off Ockham's Razor. I can't say I'm convinced.

Trying to resolve discrepancies by revising existing theories isn't looking for pink elephants, it's basic scientific method. Supersymmetry offers solutions to a bunch of challenges to the Standard Model, and if testing for them is what scientists want to do, why not?

I don't see why you'd raise the issue of expense with these experiments, a detector in a mine is small change compared to a particle accelerator.

 

When someone is looking for something, they have a bias towards the results, and can twist them to fit their own expectations. They expect to find something, and end up seeing it.

 

Don't take it literally. That was what it looked like you meant. I was showing how well you conflate the separate issues of viability of WIMPs as a hypothesis, and that of who pays the physicists.

You are not as to physicists as Howard Roark is to classical architects. An appeal to authority is entirely appropriate.

I'm not going to discuss libertarianism with you.

It does not follow that a branch of physics should be dropped and begun anew because some aspects of some theories do not match observations. The Standard Model is generally accepted as the most complete description of experimental data that there is. There are plenty of paper-based theories to fill the holes in it. The difficulty is with getting the data. Nevertheless, if WIMPs are detected for sure, then it certainly won't be the first time a hypothetical particle is proven to exist.

 

Explain. I wasn't aware the tests had been run yet; after all, the collider has just become operational again.

Well in these sorts of debates, seeing as none of us are physicists...there's going to be a tendency to either oversimplify or appeal to those who know better than we do.

Once again, back to oversimplification.

I agree, it is a pretty large hole in the theory.

You mentioned earlier than we don't need an alternate to say something ridiculous. I disagree; ideally, science should choose and explore the best theory available. Whether or not this theory is indeed the strongest is a different debate altogether.

This is intellectual debate, good sir.

 

Well, you need certain tools to find certain objects? I'm sure you've already discarded the evidence of other particles they've found using this seemingly extraneous method.

I'm not sure what you mean. Last I heard, there is actually a fairly large gap between quantum mechanics and the Standard Model, both of which, are accurate only when you consider the wave-particle nature separately.

Fair enough.

In particular, I am criticizing your simplification of the heat signatures. Scientifically, these signatures are very much like fingerprints; what you are doing here is basically saying "Big deal, they found a fingerprint, everybody leaves them behind".