Dark-matter hunt fails to find the elusive particles


(Nonlin Org) #1

Look how some people (also materialists) are willingly risking getting a black eye, which is exactly what they got now. Kudos to them for trying! Of course all current models of the universe resemble a wound-up toy which forces physicists into all kind of unreasonable theories and when one fails they have to come up with a “patch” that is even worse …like inflation, dark matter, dark energy, multiverses, branes, Big Bang, etc.

When will Darwinists gather the courage to expose their “theory” to a simple pass/fail test as proposed here?


(Christy Hemphill) #2

What does the Big Bang have to do with “Darwinists?”


(James McKay) #3

It’s this use of words such as “evolution” or “evolutionist” or “Darwinist” as a passive-aggressive umbrella term for “anything in science that I don’t like.”

In other words, it’s the kind of hostility to science that was highlighted in the Barna report a few years back. Nothing more, nothing less.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #4

Have you read the actual news release? Yeah nah.

I have a better idea. How about YOU come up a good explanation for… wait no, I don’t think that’s a good idea given all the other threads and post you have made. How about you just read this summary article by Answers in Genesis as to why we definitely know Dark Matter is real… we just don’t know what it is yet.

Don’t worry it is safe to read. Try to ignore the tiny bit about historical vs. observation science. That part is still a false distinction that they made up but there’s a lot of good observations that give us 100% confidence there is something there.


(Nonlin Org) #5

Dude, “Dark Matter” is nothing more than a plugin for our ignorance in a ‘wound-up toy model’ of the universe.

Regardless, the point of this topic is not “Dark Matter”, but the need to test beliefs to the extent possible - something that Darwinistas don’t do. Instead, thy serve all kind of lame excuses and irrelevant “proofs”. @Christy - this is the connection you missed.

The irony is that I am proposing a scientific test instead of lame excuses and false “proofs” the Darwinistas offer.


(Christy Hemphill) #6

Was there something you wanted to pursue gracious dialogue about here @NonlinOrg, or should I just close the thread right now?


(Nonlin Org) #7

You certainly have the power to do that …and perhaps the temptation to abuse against opinions you dislike as done before. But what exactly do you find dis-gracious?


(Christy Hemphill) #8

The constant negative stereotyping and derisive tone. The abuse of “quotation marks.” Not appearing to care what anyone else thinks, just wanting to score points with some imaginary audience that already agrees with you.


#9

Just in this thread alone. There are plenty of other examples in other threads.

You tend to disparage people and their ideas.


(James McKay) #10

Doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference.

Using words such as “Darwinistas” or “evolutionist” as an umbrella term for science topics that you don’t like, regardless of whether or not they actually have anything to do with biological evolution, is passive-aggressive and hostile, whatever other points you are trying to make. Stop it. Just stop.


(Larry Bunce) #11

Dark matter is invisible by definition, so it is not surprising that it will be hard to find. Science advances by making a reasonable hypothesis, (not a wild guess, but based on existing knowledge) testing it, and revising the hypothesis as required. Laughing at failures and mistakes made by science contributes nothing to the advance of knowledge, and does not convey that the one laughing is superior to the scientists working in the trenches.
The only experiment that would convince most anti-evolution people would involve creating a time machine and going back a billion years and watching life develop over time. Even then, many would think it was a trick and still not accept the evidence.
According to mainline science, it took around 500 million years for life to progress from single cells to the simplest multicellular organisms. Most of us would not live long enough to see a batch of e. coli turn into a hydra. E.coli have evolved millions of years from the first life form that appeared on earth, so they are not the best starting point for re-creating evolution in the lab. A scientific experiment needs to take into account what is already known on the subject. No scientist would participate in the challenge on the @nonlinorg website, not for fear of failure, but for knowing in advance that the test would fail. I could test your faith experimentally by asking you to pray for something, and if the wish is not granted, ask you to decide if that proves you do not have real faith, or that God does not exist.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #12

@NonlinOrg. Dude. This is what I propose for you:

You have a brilliant solution to all of the unknowns of science. It’s pretty obvious that well, Dark Matter isn’t real. Why haven’t any Cosmologists thought of that? Well duh, because of Darwin blinding their models.

All kidding aside, you have explained nothing at all. And…

Your pass/fail test has NOTHING TO DO WITH DARK MATTER.##

You must propose an alternative explanation for:

To Claim Your Personal Nobel PRIZE
Your solution cannot be any particle that we are yet familiar with as it cannot interact with electromagnetic waves at all, but yet interact gravitationally. Some other potential solutions outside gravity are related to modifying gravity… yet our equations are the most accurate equations ever written. Failed attempts were MOND (which still requires dark matter just less of it and is an idea which is now dead) or maybe emergent gravity (which predicts nothing new and explains what we do see worse than current models).

What you actually proposed
(section intentionally left blank)


#13

What makes any of these theories unreasonable?

Here are 29+ pass/fail tests for evolution right here.


#14

False. Even without the BB theory there is still more mass in galaxies than can be accounted for by luminous matter. If the BB theory did not exist there would still be scientists hypothesizing dark matter just from measuring the orbital velocities of galaxies and the way light bends around them.


(Bill Wald) #15

If the argument is that scientists are spinning their wheels trying to know the mind of God then I suggest that God told us that anyone who tries to know the mind of God is spinning their wheels. What is hard to understand about “My ways are higher than your ways. My thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

Follow the money. Bills don’t get payed by preaching, “No one understands God.”


#16

Luckily, scientists are not trying to understand the mind of God. They are trying to figure out why the measured gravity in a galaxy is greater than what we would expect from the amount of luminous matter we observe in that galaxy.


(system) #17

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.