Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter

dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
keithprosser
Posts: 2,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 9:46:37 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Its fine to be agnostic! No one knows about dark matter. The only definite fact is that galaxies spin too fast. If all that holds a galaxy together was the force of gravity exterted by its visible matter then it should break apart like a giant over-stressed flywheel. The force holding a galaxy together seems to be more that can be accounted for by normal gravity - theory and observation don't match.

There are many possible reasons for the discrepancy - may be the measurements are wrong, or many be the theory of gravity is wrong. But you can also get the numbers to match up if there is a lot of invisible matter in galaxies, and for various reason 'dark matter' is the most popular theory at present. But there are also theories such as MOND that don't have any weird invisible matter but require a 'tweak' to the the theory of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

So there is no harm in sitting on the fence, nor indeed betting on the current favourite Dark Matter or on a rank outsider like MOND as long as you remember it's the result of experiement that decide these things, not personal preference and rhetoric!
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 7:33:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.

There are other possibilities. See the second post in this thread. Regardless, if it can't be observed in the natural world, then I'm just as justified as those who are agnostic of God because He cannot be observed.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 9:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 7:33:14 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.

There are other possibilities. See the second post in this thread. Regardless, if it can't be observed in the natural world, then I'm just as justified as those who are agnostic of God because He cannot be observed.

You are right. I should have said that either believe something with mass influencing gravtational pull, measurements of velocity of stuff off, or understanding of gravity is off.

I'm curious to know if MOND can be used to explain or involved in explanation of dark energy or more proper the expansion of the universe.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 10:21:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 9:42:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 7:33:14 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.

There are other possibilities. See the second post in this thread. Regardless, if it can't be observed in the natural world, then I'm just as justified as those who are agnostic of God because He cannot be observed.

You are right. I should have said that either believe something with mass influencing gravtational pull, measurements of velocity of stuff off, or understanding of gravity is off.

I'm curious to know if MOND can be used to explain or involved in explanation of dark energy or more proper the expansion of the universe.

Me too.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 11:59:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 9:42:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 7:33:14 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.

There are other possibilities. See the second post in this thread. Regardless, if it can't be observed in the natural world, then I'm just as justified as those who are agnostic of God because He cannot be observed.

You are right. I should have said that either believe something with mass influencing gravtational pull, measurements of velocity of stuff off, or understanding of gravity is off.

There is a fourth option, that we are underestimating the effects of electric forces in the universe, which is predicted by plasma cosmology.


I'm curious to know if MOND can be used to explain or involved in explanation of dark energy or more proper the expansion of the universe.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 10:18:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

Yes, you and the rest of the scientific community.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 10:30:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 7:33:14 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.

There are other possibilities. See the second post in this thread. Regardless, if it can't be observed in the natural world, then I'm just as justified as those who are agnostic of God because He cannot be observed.

There seems to be several definition of 'god' that people seem to use assuming there is overlap. Many times theists use arguments like the cosmological argument, etc to prove their existence of their god. The problem is that it only could be argued as evidence for a deistic god, which does not fit the technical definition of 'god'.

God (definition) - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Source - https://www.google.com...

The god of a theist is a completely different matter. They believe in an interventionist god that rules. Actually, for a god to rule, he must intervene otherwise he is not ruling; he is simply observing. The evidence that is required to imply there is an interventionist god would be evidence of intervention. There is no such evidence. All we have are unsubstantiated ancient stories of god making snakes talk, parting seas and making someone walk on water. Now all we have is questionable images in toast.

There are reasons to be agnostic about dark matter because there is evidence that seems to imply it might exist.

I am not agnostic per se about Russell's Teapot because there is no evidence that would seem to imply its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org...

What evidence implies that a God exists that rules the universe and watches and judges humans in the daily lives, particularly in matters of genital misuse?
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:10:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Like so many things in life the problem with dark matter is what's missing from this picture. The visible universe with what we normally think of as mass and energy accounts for a tiny fraction of the universe. The visible universe obeys a fractal pattern similar to different layers of paint cracking when they heat up and cool down at different rates. One possibility is that our current theories simply can't account for metaphysical extremes because we don't yet have a theory of everything and, for all anyone knows, dark matter and energy reflect a more primal state than we have yet to measure.

Another example of this is the recent series of heavier particles detected at the LHC that don't appear to fit any models. The Standard Model used now is incredibly accurate, but still formulated using classical logic limiting what it can express and suggesting we are reaching the limits of our current mathematics. Within twenty years computers should be able to shed more light on the issue.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:32:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 10:18:31 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

Yes, you and the rest of the scientific community.

Proof that theists and scientists can agree!
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:51:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 3:32:51 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 10:18:31 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

Yes, you and the rest of the scientific community.

Proof that theists and scientists can agree!

Yes, they agree on other things, like the boiling point of water and a few other things. Its when any religious historical claim contradicts science is when it gets dicey.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:53:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 10:30:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 7:33:14 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:12:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

If you believe that the observation that outer stars in galaxy are moving so fast that they should fling out of the galaxy then you believe in dark matter in what ever form or thing it may be.

If you think the velocity measurements are not accurate of the outer stars then you don't have to believe in dark matter.

So in short it is impossible to be agnostic on dark matter unless you are agnostic on whether the observations which would require something to explain those observations are accurate or not.

There are other possibilities. See the second post in this thread. Regardless, if it can't be observed in the natural world, then I'm just as justified as those who are agnostic of God because He cannot be observed.

There seems to be several definition of 'god' that people seem to use assuming there is overlap. Many times theists use arguments like the cosmological argument, etc to prove their existence of their god. The problem is that it only could be argued as evidence for a deistic god, which does not fit the technical definition of 'god'.

God (definition) - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Source - https://www.google.com...


This definition in no way conflicts with my point concerning the natural world, or the cosmological argument.

The god of a theist is a completely different matter. They believe in an interventionist god that rules. Actually, for a god to rule, he must intervene otherwise he is not ruling;

Says who? Based on what?

he is simply observing

A ruler is still a ruler when observing.

. The evidence that is required to imply there is an interventionist god would be evidence of intervention

Intervention doesn't require material. It also doesn't require God to enter one and space.

. There is no such evidence

Searching for evidence of the immaterial with instruments that measure matter is patently unfair.

. All we have are unsubstantiated ancient stories of god making snakes talk, parting seas and making someone walk on water. Now all we have is questionable images in toast.


That's not all we have:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

There are reasons to be agnostic about dark matter because there is evidence that seems to imply it might exist.

Care to reword that?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:01:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 3:51:14 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 3:32:51 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 10:18:31 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

Yes, you and the rest of the scientific community.

Proof that theists and scientists can agree!

Yes, they agree on other things, like the boiling point of water and a few other things. Its when any religious historical claim contradicts science is when it gets dicey.

Amen.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

Good position - I brought this to the attention of one DummelRusse in this very forum some months ago and he was adamant that dark matter is an established unquestionable scientific fact - I'm sure those posts are still around here somewhere.

Dark matter is hypothetical, proposed as a means of reconciling certain observations with fundamental physical laws, basically the tangential velocity of stars in the rims of galaxies with basic Newtonian gravitation.

There are alternative hypotheses too, the most notable being termed "MOND" but this too has its detractors and there are other competing ideas as well.

Yes, retaining an open mind is the way to go - always.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 6:39:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 5:42:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 7/23/2016 8:12:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://www.msn.com...

Good position - I brought this to the attention of one DummelRusse in this very forum some months ago and he was adamant that dark matter is an established unquestionable scientific fact - I'm sure those posts are still around here somewhere.

Dark matter is hypothetical, proposed as a means of reconciling certain observations with fundamental physical laws, basically the tangential velocity of stars in the rims of galaxies with basic Newtonian gravitation.

There are alternative hypotheses too, the most notable being termed "MOND" but this too has its detractors and there are other competing ideas as well.

Yes, retaining an open mind is the way to go - always.

Thanks for the kind words.

Is this the thread you're referring to?:

http://www.debate.org...
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax