Bad Science

[Kaos_Mage]

was this cold dark matter or warm?

 

Well, you need certain tools to find certain objects?

Let's apply to russell's teapot. "It exists, but we just need 9 billion dollars and 70 years of research funding to make a telescope capable of finding it."

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.

The standard model:
A quantum-mechanical model that explains the three nongravitational forces—electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force—and their interactions with matter. ...

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".

Just to establish some factual baseline here: There is no detector machine they plug in which gives a finger print of whatever happens to be passing through. They detect collisions either in the form of ionization, radiation or heat exchange, via a number of different techniques, and from these collision results they postulate what the cause of said collision may have been.

So to be clear: they make collisions between particles at very high energies then they detect the secondary collisions and hypothesize as to what the cause of the secondary collisions may have been -- that's a particle accelerator.

With the 'weak particles' they simply posit a particle that has no strong interactions with matter, and therefore can't be detected by the preexisting means, then attempt to use the preexisting means anyway, pick up some background noise and say "look we found it, the universe is 95% composed of invisible pink elephant matter."

A technique used by the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) detector at the Soudan Mine relies on multiple very cold germanium and silicon crystals. The crystals (each about the size of a hockey puck) are cooled to about 50 millikelvins. A layer of metal (aluminium and tungsten) at the surfaces is used to detect a WIMP passing through the crystal. This design hopes to detect vibrations in the crystal matrix generated by an atom being "kicked" by a WIMP. The tungsten metal sensors are held at the critical temperature so they are in the superconducting state. Large crystal vibrations will generate heat in the metal and are detectable because of a change in resistance.

 

[FreedomFight]

Let's apply to russell's teapot. "It exists, but we just need 9 billion dollars and 70 years of research funding to make a telescope capable of finding it."

Russel's teapot is a guideline, not the definer of objective reality. In either case, I suppose their must've been a conclusion that it was more likely that we couldn't detect the particle rather than the particle itself not-existing.

The standard model:
A quantum-mechanical model that explains the three nongravitational forces—electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force—and their interactions with matter. ...

I stand corrected, for some reason I got it mixed up with Einstein's model.

Just to establish some factual baseline here: There is no detector machine they plug in which gives a finger print of whatever happens to be passing through. They detect collisions either in the form of ionization, radiation or heat exchange, via a number of different techniques, and from these collision results they postulate what the cause of said collision may have been.

Using this methodology, I assume they must've ruled out the alternative possibilities?

 

Russel's teapot is a guideline, not the definer of objective reality. In either case, I suppose their must've been a conclusion that it was more likely that we couldn't detect the particle rather than the particle itself not-existing.

More likely that they were after funding and grants and this was the avenue by which to get them.

Using this methodology, I assume they must've ruled out the alternative possibilities?

I don't understand to what the question refers.

To give an example of the impoverished nature of the evidence, one might misidentify a 'photon' as an 'electron', having observed some ionization in a detector, and then be forced to go back and check for signs of mass using other devices along the same track, then, having reviewed the evidence, essentially make a guess as to which it may have been.

In my mind this becomes sufficiently ridiculous to raise red flags when one also considers that these detectors are used in conjunction with atom smashers; analogous to trying to determine the components of a guitar by listening to two guitars being smashed together at the speed of sound.

 

[Denode]

Name a single particle in the universe which "is visible". There are none. Also, the electron was a hypothetical particle at one time. Are you going to say that doesn't exist either? We realize their existence through things like experiments and if you think scientists do not understand the difference between thermal noise and the heat signature of a WIMP particle, you obviously have no idea how a scientific experiment is done.

Try studying on the subject before you make such a bold statement on a topic you lack sufficient preliminary knowledge of.

 

Name a single particle in the universe which "is visible". There are none.

(Atoms, actual photograph.)

Also, the electron was a hypothetical particle at one time.

Still is.

Are you going to say that doesn't exist either?

Entirely possible.

We realize their existence through things like experiments and if you think scientists do not understand the difference between thermal noise and the heat signature of a WIMP particle, you obviously have no idea how a scientific experiment is done.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Try studying on the subject before you make such a bold statement on a topic you lack sufficient preliminary knowledge of.

Try conceiving of an actual argument to make before posting in this forum.

 

[FreedomFight]

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/whittle/astr124/matter/atom_lattice.gif

(Atoms, actual photograph.)

Granted, this in itself... is a little misleading. A photograph implies an optical, light-based observance. This is not an actual photo but rather the result of us shooting a stream of electrons and finding out that they didn't travel the way we think they would.

 

Granted, this in itself... is a little misleading. A photograph implies an optical, light-based observance. This is not an actual photo but rather the result of us shooting a stream of electrons and finding out that they didn't travel the way we think they would.

Actually its taken with a scanning tunneling microscope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope

In that respect, yes it is more of a physical imprint than a photograph.

But of course this isn't the only evidence. The entire microchip industry is based around photo-lithography at (thesedays) the atomic scale. Electron-light ('beam of electrons') and laser light are used in conjunction to cast nano-scopic patterns onto etching materials on slivers of silicon, over and over, building up the layers of the integrated circuit.

 

[Denode]

(Atoms, actual photograph.)

Still is.


Entirely possible.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Try conceiving of an actual argument to make before posting in this forum.

1. Please don't use a picture that requires the use of electrons and then question an electrons existence. As you would say: That's fallacious.

2. The existence of electrons is as measurable and robust as is our existence. The possibility of their non-existence is, of course, possible, but entirely unprovable (unless contradictory, which I see electrons in no way being self-contradicting) and extremely unlikely considering the numerous tests that invoke knowledge and manipulation of electrons yield expected results.

3. When you said invisible, did you mean optically or altogether immeasurable? I took it to mean optically, and you did not disprove my statement with a scanning tunneling microscope because it is not optic. Please notify me if you meant altogether immeasurable.

4. I sincerely apologize for the personal attacks.

 

1. Please don't use a picture that requires the use of electrons and then question an electrons existence. As you would say: That's fallacious.

2. The existence of electrons is as measurable and robust as is our existence. The possibility of their non-existence is, of course, possible, but entirely unprovable (unless contradictory, which I see electrons in no way being self-contradicting) and extremely unlikely considering the numerous tests that invoke knowledge and manipulation of electrons yield expected results.

The device that took the picture 'requires the use of' conductance, electrical charge, and the transfer of charge through a vacuum, not particulate 'electrons' -- which are an hypothetical explanation of electrical phenomena.

If you were to use the term 'electron' in the same sense that one uses the term 'meter', then that would be fine, but a meter still isn't a class of existent.

It doesn't logically follow (from either your argument nor the phenomena exploited by the device) that electrons are particles. Indeed, the principle in use 'electron tunneling' suggests anything but a particle.

3. When you said invisible, did you mean optically or altogether immeasurable? I took it to mean optically, and you did not disprove my statement with a scanning tunneling microscope because it is not optic. Please notify me if you meant altogether immeasurable.

My original quote:
With the 'weak particles' they simply posit a particle that has no strong interactions with matter, and therefore can't be detected by the preexisting means, then attempt to use the preexisting means anyway, pick up some background noise and say "look we found it, the universe is 95% composed of invisible pink elephant matter."

I think it's pretty clear. I can restate it if you like:

Errors in cosmological force calculations are being attributed to a hypothetical class of matter which is nothing more than an appeal to the unknown. Dark matter is god matter. You can't see it, you can't detect it, it doesn't react with anything, all it does is exactly what you need it to do to make your equations work; By its definition it is literally absent to all senses, internal and external.

As I said somewhere earlier: it is basically a third re-postulation of Aether. The first being the early 20th century luminous Aether, the second being space-time, and the third being dark matter / dark energy. The key identifier of an Aether is that it's an undetectable invisible magical thing which makes X happen, where X is what you want to happen, whether that be the acceleration of mass toward other mass, or the transmission of light in a vacuum, or anything in-between.

 

[Guineapigcal]

So is this how scientists are finding a way to explain why space looks black?

 

[Schnell]

So is this how scientists are finding a way to explain why space looks black?

No. Space looks black because black is the absence of light. If an area of the sky looks black, it's simply because nothing in that area is emitting/reflecting enough light to be visible. It doesn't require "black matter".