The Instigator
TruthLibrary
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Dark matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 86341
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

TruthLibrary

Pro

When astronomers observe the universe, their models do not match what they see. For example, astronomers predicted a very large and dense object in the middle of our galaxy, the Milky Way -- since the countless solar systems are being attracted. However, when we looked towards the center of the Milky Way... we saw nothing.

So what happens next? Bright minds, instead of seriously questioning their understanding of the universe, declare that they can't possibly be wrong (ego through the roof) so therefore, there must exist magical, exotic, invisible, undetectable, fairytale particles called dark matter to explain away the data.

How about this: consider that your models might be WRONG and there are no MAGICAL particles.
ssadi

Con

I would like to thank dear TruthLibrary, who will be called as Pro from now on, for instigating this debate.

Since they didn't provide definitions and structure of the debate, I will do it instead.


DEFINITIONS

Dark matter: “Dark matter is a hypothetical substance that is believed by most astronomers to account for around five-sixths of the matter in the universe.”[1]

Black hole: “A black hole is a geometrically defined region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing - including particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light - can escape from inside it.”[2]

Science:Scienceis a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”[3]

Advancement: “An act of moving forward”[4], “improvement, growth, rize, etc.”[5]

Hindrance: “An impeding, stopping, preventing, or the like.”[6]


BOP

Pro claims that dark matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement. BoP is on Pro to prove his claim. I, on the other hand, will refute his arguments to show that his claim is not true. I may also provide some direct arguments to show that dark matter or the discussion of dark matter is not a hindrance to scientific advancement.

Please note that the topic of our discussion is only about whether dark matter is a hindrance or not.


STRUCTURE

Round 1:Acceptance, definitions, rules, introductory opening statements.

Round 2-4: Arguments, rebuttals, defense of rebuttals, etc.

Round 5: Closing arguments.

No new arguments are allowed in round 5.


INTRODUCTION

From Pro’s opening statements we see that he means that the discussion of dark matter is a hindrance, not dark matter itself. There is confusion in Pro’s arguments in R1 about dark matter and black holes, because a hypothetical “very large and dense object in the middle of our galaxy” is not dark matter, but a (supermassive) black hole. Therefore, their explanations of this “very large and dense object” is unrelated to what they claim scientists say that there is “magical, exotic, invisible, undetectable, fairytale particles called dark matter to explain away the data”. So, it is important for Pro to make it clear if he is talking about dark matter, black holes or both.I will be refuting their arguments for dark matter, black holes or both, depending on what they will be arguing for.


ON PRO’S OPENING STATEMENTS


What Pro provided so far were bare assertions.

Pro: “… astronomers predicted a very large and dense object in the middle of our galaxy, the Milky Way {1} -- since the countless solar systems are being attracted {2}. However, when we looked towards the center of the Milky Way... we saw nothing {3}.”

How about this: consider that your models might be WRONG {4} and there are no MAGICAL particles {5}.

The reason for {1} is {2}, that is by deduction. Let me give an example.

Imagine you weigh a closed box and see that it is 100 grams. Another day you come and notice that the box is heavier than it was before. You put it on the scale again and see that it is 500 grams, but you can’t see what is inside (it is closed and you are not allowed or not able to open it). By logical deduction, you can easily conclude that something else of about 400 grams MUST be added to the box when you were away. Note that the fact that you cannot see the inside of the box doesn’t give you any reason to refute your conclusion obtained from measurement of the scale.

Similarly, {3} doesn’t give us any reason for considering {4} or {5}. Firstly, they are not related, {3} is about a black hole and {4} & {5} are about dark matter which are different from each other as far as we know.[7] Secodly, even if we were talking about black holes one first have to show that {2} is wrong before asking to reconsider our conclusion {1}.

In addition, {4} & {5} can be considered if Pro gives us a good reason and provides a solution(s) and explanation(s) for {2}.

So, what is the scale in case of dark matter that showed us that there must be much more matter than what is observed?

“Because scientists can't see dark matter directly, they have found other ways to investigate it. We can use indirect ways to study things, like looking at a shadow and making an educated guess about what's casting the shadow. One way scientists indirectly study dark matter is by using gravitational lensing.

Light going through a gravitational lens is similar to light going through an optical lens: It gets bent. When light from distant stars passes through a galaxy or cluster, the gravity of the matter present in the galaxy or cluster causes the light to bend. As a result, the light looks like it is coming from somewhere else rather than from its actual origin. The amount of bending helps scientists learn about the dark matter present. Many NASA scientists use the Hubble Space Telescope to observe gravitational lensing.” (Emphasis made)[8]

CONCLUSION

If Pro has any objections about definitions or structure, then we can discuss them under comments and reconsider them. If Pro agrees with definitions and structure given above, then he can directly post his arguments in R2.

I wish Pro best of luck!

Debate Round No. 1
TruthLibrary

Pro

TruthLibrary forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TruthLibrary

Pro

TruthLibrary forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TruthLibrary

Pro

TruthLibrary forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TruthLibrary

Pro

TruthLibrary forfeited this round.
ssadi

Con

CONCLUSION


My opponent forfeited 4 roudns. BOP was fully on Pro to back up their claim that Dark Matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement. The only "argument" they provided was actually about black holes. Then they concluded that since we can't see those "magic particles" meaning dark matter, then it probably doesn't exist.


I showed how scientists discovered the existence of dark matter. We cannot see dark matter. So how do we know whether dark matter exists or not? The answer is through its gravitational effects on its environment. If there is a gravitation, then we conclude that there is matter. But if the observable matter is not sufficient to count for the observed gravitation, then we conclude that there is also matter that we cannot observe. We don't know what that is, but we know that there is something. Since it is invisible, we called it as dark matter.


The materials I provided in round 1 under "On Pro's Opening Statements" refute all the arguments Pro provided. Since they forfeited all rounds and didn't provide anything else, then there is nothing for me to do as Con.


I would like to thank the voters in advance!


Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TruthLibrary 1 year ago
TruthLibrary
m8 -- not correct, I'm not stating dark matter does not exist, I'm stating that there is no reason to assume such a 'magical' substance exists only because the data disagrees with the model, we should equally consider the option that the model is wrong.
Posted by m8 1 year ago
m8
Your first round basically just claims that dark matter doesn't exist.

Is that what the debate is really about? If it is, I'll accept it, because it's a surefire win.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
What happens to a supermassive star's core after it explodes?
If you don't believe that the result is a supermassive black hole, then by all means, explain why those physics don;t add up.

I would take this debate, but there's not really much to gain for me by facing you.
However, if you can explain why the result of an exploding massive star ISN'T a black hole, then you could make a lot of money and win a lot of awards.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
TruthLibraryssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
TruthLibraryssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited multiple turns.
Vote Placed by Peepette 12 months ago
Peepette
TruthLibraryssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO FF multiple rounds