Friday, November 28, 2008

Cosmic Ray Hot Spots Puzzle Researchers



Ball, P., Cosmic-Ray Hot Spots Puzzle Researchers, Nature, Nov 26th 2008. (Hat tip: Dave L.)

Proton discovery may cast doubt on dark-matter theories.

Philip Ball

The Milagro detector has seen cosmic-ray hot-spots. Hot on the heels of speculation that cosmic rays may have revealed the signature of elusive dark matter in space, new observations could challenge that idea and reinforce an alternative explanation.

A seven-year-long experiment at the Milagro cosmic-ray detector near Los Alamos, New Mexico, has revealed 'bright patches' of high-energy cosmic rays in the sky1 – something incompatible with a dark-matter source.

Cosmic rays are charged particles, mostly protons and electrons, that are produced in space and generally have a characteristic energy spectrum — the higher their energy, the rarer they are.

But last week, researchers working on the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) experiment, which uses detectors borne by a high-altitude balloon to measure cosmic-ray electrons above the Antarctic, reported an unexpected bump in this energy spectrum, corresponding to a surfeit of electrons with energies between 300 and 800 gigaelectronvolts2.

Hints at such an anomaly have been seen before. A satellite observatory — Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics (PAMELA) — detected an excess of cosmic-ray positrons, the anti-particles of electrons, at similar energies3. And a Japanese detector called the Balloon-borne Electron Telescope with Scintillating fibers (BETS) also found a small excess of cosmic-ray electrons at high energy4.

These cosmic rays may be the decay products of hypothetical particles of dark matter, thought to make up about 85% of all matter in the Universe. Astronomers have invoked dark matter's gravitational effects to explain why rotating galaxies don't fall apart as they whirl through space. But as the name implies, dark matter can't be seen directly and its identity remains obscure.

A common assumption is that dark matter consists of a hitherto unknown particle that interacts weakly with other forms of matter. In some theories, two dark-matter particles are predicted to annihilate when they collide, producing a high-energy electron–positron pair. These could account for the ATIC cosmic-ray bump and the hints of it in the PAMELA data. But if that's so, the anomalous cosmic rays should be distributed more or less evenly across the sky.

In contrast, the Milagro team, led by Jordan Goodman at the University of Maryland, College Park, found cosmic-ray protons bunched up in two 'hot spots': one between the Orion and Taurus constellations, the other near Gemini. They think that the excess cosmic rays may be coming from exotic sources such as the rapidly rotating neutron stars known as pulsars, rather than dark-matter annihilations.

Dark-matter mystery

Goodman stresses that it's not yet clear if the ATIC and Milagro results are related, because the former measure cosmic-ray electrons whereas the latter detect protons. But he says the sources of the protons they have seen could also plausibly generate the electrons and positrons found in the earlier studies. "If it's the same phenomenon making them all, then it's not dark matter," he says.

But the dark-mater explanation still cannot be ruled out. "I've been totally perplexed by the hot spots but I don't see any reason to connect them with the ATIC findings," says Dan Hooper, a theoretical physicist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.

The Milagro detector isn't aimed primarily at investigating cosmic rays, but is instead used for gamma-ray astronomy. When high-energy gamma rays hit our atmosphere they trigger a shower of exotic particles. These particles annihilate when they collide with water in Milagro's giant tank, producing a flash of light that can be recorded by sensors.

But 99.9% of the flashes seen by Milagro originate from collisions of cosmic-ray protons, explains Goodman. That creates a background signal that has to be subtracted in order to identify gamma rays from energetic astrophysical sources. Goodman says that finding localized sources of cosmic-ray protons in this background came as a surprise to them.

An earlier cosmic-ray experiment called the Tibet Air Shower Array, run by a team of researchers in Japan and China, saw broad differences in the cosmic-ray intensity between the two hemispheres5, but no one had previously seen such smaller-scale concentrations.

The Milagro team suggests that the protons, with energies of around 10,000 gigaelectronvolts, may be generated in the extreme astrophysical environment of a super-dense neutron star or pulsar. At least some high-energy cosmic rays have previously been shown to come from super-massive black holes in nearby galaxies6.

"We don't know what is causing it," Goodman admits. He suggests that the localization may be partly caused by magnetic fields focusing the protons' trajectories.

But in general, magnetic fields in interstellar space should exert a randomizing influence, destroying any bright spots, says Hooper. "I can't imagine how they're created, and I don't know if anyone has any great ideas," he says.

15 comments:

Louis Hissink said...

I have a sneaking suspicion the electric plasma types would have an explanation. Let's wait for a TPOD :-)

OilIsMastery said...

Haha. Yes! Looking forward to it...=)

Louis Hissink said...

Latest video on Nikola Tesla from Thunderbolts, by the way.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=akM9KNEv_JE&sdig=1

diatreme said...

Taurus and Gemini are homes to two significant meteor radiants.

By the way, what is a TPOD?

Anaconda said...

CASCADING TO AN ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE?

Make no mistake this observation has huge implications. And it is a cascading event:

First, the scientific observation was reported to the scientifc community as posted, here, on Oil Is Mastery: Billions of Electron Volts Hitting the Earth, November 21, 2008.

Second, it was commented on in the scientific community: Puzzling hot spots in the cosmic-ray sky, Karl-Heinz Kampert, Department of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany, Published November 24, 2008 (hat-tip BF).

Third, it was reported in the popular scientific media (sciencedDaily) that reaches a wider forum in the scientifically inclined general public as posted, here, on Oil is mastery: Cosmic Ray Hot Spots Identified, November 25, 2008.

Now, fourth, it was reported in Nature, as posted, here, a leading scientific journal with readers in both the wider scientific community and the scientifcally inclined general public.

And with publication in Nature, other media in the broader mass-media market will likely pick up the story and run with all its implications (basic scientific understandings questioned, reads the lead).

In Nature the discussion made the issue and implications explicit:

"[N]ew observations could challenge that idea [the existence of "dark matter"] and reinforce an alternative explanation."

This is huge because "dark matter" is intrinsically connected to "big bang, black hole" theory. If "dark matter" is scientifically established not to exist, then the whole "big bang, black hole" theory is seriously called into question, and if so, then ultimately General Relativity theory, also, is called into question as a viable theory.

In the Oil Is Mastery post: Magnetic Monsters, November 26, 2008, a commenter, diatreme, when confronted with the fact that "big bang, black hole" theory relied on "dark matter, "dark energy", and "strange matter" to keep "big bang, black hole" theory from being falsified, diatreme, at first denied that was the case. But after the case ("big bang" does rely on the three above unknowns) was spelled out in detail, diatreme went silent regarding that issue.

(One of the strongest tell-tale signs of the validity of an argument is when the opponent doesn't respond to the argument, but simply ignores it.)

So, clearly, without the existence of "dark matter", all the theories which rely on it are called into question -- most directly "big bang, black hole" theory.

Science media and science journals like Nature are very careful and considered in the language they use and quote in their publications. Make no mistake, it was significant that Nature published a story where one of the central topics was calling into question the existence of "dark matter".

The Nature publishers know full well the implications for "big bang, black hole" theory if "dark matter" is scientifically established NOT to exist.

And, that opens the door to wider discussion of the Electric Universe theory in forums available to the scientifically inclined general public.

Frankly, if the general public is exposed to the paradoxes and falsifications of "big bang, black hole" theory, and the substantial and rapidly accumulating scientific evidence for Electric Universe theory -- it seems inevitable that Electric Universe theory will become the dominate astrophysical theory in the scientific community and, perhaps, more important, the general public.

"Throughout space there is energy...It is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelhouse of nature." -- Nikola Tesla

"Whatever the future may bring, the univeral application of these great [EM] principles is fully assured, though it may be long in coming." -- Nikola Tesla

For the sake of Humanity, let's make it sooner, rather than later!

I highly recommend the Thunderbolts, YouTube video: Nikola Tesla and The Electric Universe.

As on other scientific fronts (Abiotic Oil theory) the pieces are coming together with ever increasing speed and power.

OilIsMastery said...

Diatreme,

TPOD stands for The Picture Of the Day....=)

diatreme said...

"This is huge because "dark matter" is intrinsically connected to "big bang, black hole" theory. If "dark matter" is scientifically established not to exist, then the whole "big bang, black hole" theory is seriously called into question, and if so, then ultimately General Relativity theory, also, is called into question as a viable theory."

The paragraph above is really dumb. The physics of black holes and big bang cosmology are two different things. Repeated mention of them together marks you as someone who does not know very much about either.

These tests do nothing whatsoever to question whether dark matter really exists or not. In fact, I seriously doubt that you guys know why dark matter is even thought to exist in the first place.* In the minds of the scientists who are looking for it, ANY form of matter with enough mass to explain the observations will suffice.

* Dark matter is required because of the observed velocities of stars around galaxies, and member galaxies within clusters are often found to be moving faster than they could if the amounts of matter in those respective galaxies, or clusters thereof are limited to the matter visible as stars. The formal statement of the stability requirement is something called the Virial Theorem:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O80-virialtheorem.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem

"a commenter, diatreme, when confronted with the fact that "big bang, black hole" theory relied on "dark matter, "dark energy", and "strange matter" to keep "big bang, black hole" theory from being falsified, diatreme, at first denied that was the case."

Again, another conflation of the terms Black Hole and Big Bang. Another false assertion that either of these theories is falsified by the need for dark matter or dark energy. And another example of "artifice" in trying to imply that I first denied something that I later admitted.

And a new false claim that I went silent about anything.

"But after the case ("big bang" does rely on the three above unknowns) was spelled out in detail, diatreme went silent regarding that issue."

Who spelled out what? All theories that attempt to explain the state of the Universe will have to deal with those observations which require dark matter and dark energy. The only way to avoid that requirement is to prove that the observations are all being incorrectly interpreted.

"(One of the strongest tell-tale signs of the validity of an argument is when the opponent doesn't respond to the argument, but simply ignores it.)"

I have commented on every one of your points several times. You are the ones ignoring my requests. You have asserted that I have made false assumptions. So I asked you to list them, and you have not. You have asserted that there are falsifying observations to the theories at issue. I have asked you to list them, and again you have not done so.

Here is a gem:

"If "dark matter" is scientifically established not to exist..."

1.) You cannot prove a negative.

2.) It is because of observations made by "science" that people are looking for dark matter.

3.) If the observations or interpretations which pointed to the need for dark matter were retracted, what excuse would you have then to ridicule Big Bang theory?

"Frankly, if the general public is exposed to the paradoxes and falsifications of "big bang, black hole" theory"

A suggestion: Stop conflating the two, and begin, if you are men enough... presenting the "paradoxes and falsifications."

Anaconda said...

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CONSIDERED

diatreme:

As I've written before the two theories can be considered seperately, but, also as noted before, it's entirely appropriate to co-join them because the assumed existence of "black holes" derives out of the same set of theories that postulates the "big bang" beginning to the Universe.

And, as noted before, almost without exception, all "big bangers" are, also, "black holers" with you being a prime example.

And both theories rely for their validity upon assumed phenomenon, derived from mathematical equations. Both theories fail to employ the scientific method: Which is to first observe a physical phenomenon and then try to explain it by known scientfic principles.

Both "big bang" and "black hole" hypothesis invert the scientific method: Derive mathematical equations which you THINK represent the laws of the Universe, then imagine physical phenomenon that validate and prove the mathematical equations.

Then go out and try and find physical phenomenon that match what you imagined in the first place; in addition, imagining "other" things that have to exist ("dark matter and so on) so that the first things you imagined can exist.

At it's simplist: It's making up things in order to prove other made-up things. Of course, these come from the imagination of men that have the self-imposed illusion that because they crafted mathematical equations to "dress-up" their imaginations that somehow proves their imaginations are an accurate depiction of reality.

So, yes, I will continue to co-join the two terms in a single set of quotation marks.

diatreme states: "These tests do nothing whatsoever to question whether dark matter really exists or not."

Hey, I'm only reporting what the scientists familiar with the scientific reports are saying and being quoted in Nature.

If you got a problem with that, then go take it up with the scientists making the statements or Nature for quoting them.

Don't call my statement dumb just because you are afraid to hear it.

diatreme, this statement is enough to show where you are coming from:

"In the minds of the scientists who are looking for it, ANY form of matter with enough mass to explain the observations will suffice."

In other words, anything will suffice in order to prove our theory.

In short: "Whatever it takes."

That's the scientific rigor applied by "big bang, black hole" theorists.

Of course, it's easy to imagine you see whatever you want to imagine is out there in deep space.

This has been a common misstake of perception, to see what you want to see out of an ambiguous set of observations or circumstances.

The Scientific Method is designed to avoid just that kind of result.

The first injuction of the Scientific Method is to familiarize and consider all the evidence from both sides of the scientific question.

The next step is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both theories.

A realistic and considered investigation of observations and measurements that falsify the theory you propose needs to be engaged in.

Then a realistic and considered investigation of observations and measurements that have a tendency to suggest or prove an alternative theory needs to be engaged in.

Failure to engage in the above procedure renders opinions and beliefs uninformed to the scientific question at hand and thus unable to render an informed and an objective opinion or belief as to the scientific question posed.

This post and other posts are an example of giving the readers the freedom to familiarize themselves with the scientfic evidence.

Scientific evidence they may not have been familiar with before.

That's the fun part in science, investigating things one hasn't seen or been familiar with before.

Learning new things, in this instance new observations that shed new light on Man's scientfic understanding of his world and, now, beyond.

These statements have to be addressed:

diatreme states: "If "dark matter" is scientifically established not to exist..."

1.) You cannot prove a negative.

Exactly, you can't prove dark matter doesn't exist because, since it's postulated to exist without any evidence it does so, then you can never prove it doesn't exist.

In other words, the hypothesis of "dark matter" can't be falsified.

That violates a cardinal rule of science every hypothesis must, I repeat must, be able to be falsified or you can never disprove it.

Not being able to disprove something in science would mean never being able to disprove man's imagination.

(Of course, that's exactly how the "big bang, black hole" folks want it: NEVER BEING ABLE TO DISPROVE THEIR THEORY!)

diatreme states: "It is because of observations made by "science" that people are looking for dark matter."

No!

It is because predictions failed without the creation of "some" unknown, "dark matter".

The postulate of "dark matter" was necessitated to maintain validity for the theory,

If the theory had "worked out" just fine with no anomalies, do you think "big bang, black hole" folks would have conceived of "dark matter"?

Of course not.

They would have proclaimed their theory "proven" and the idea of "dark matter" would have never been thought of, much less proposed.

It's simple, but for the failure of "big bang, black hole" theory, "dark matter" would never have been proposed at all!

You, diatreme, have willingly set your hypothesis up in the position of not being able to be disproved.

As I said before in another comment, diatreme, you are a dumb monkey.

diatreme states: "If the observations or interpretations which pointed to the need for dark matter were retracted, what excuse would you have then to ridicule Big Bang theory?"

Well, if the need for "dark matter" were retracted, I wouldn't need to ridicule "big bang, black hole" theory because it would be discarded as "unworkable".

You see, "big bang, black hole" is unworkable without the assumption of "dark matter".

That's why "big bang, black hole" theorists proposed "dark matter" in the first place.

"There has to be this 'dark matter' out there for gravitational models of the Universe to work," is what the theorists said.

diatreme, you're not helping your cause.

diatreme, you are willingly in Plato's cave seeing the shadows on the wall and mistaking them for reality when they are only reflections from the fire of your imagination.

diatreme said...

"the assumed existence of "black holes" derives out of the same set of theories that postulates the "big bang" beginning to the Universe."

General Relativity is applied to both Black Holes and to the various competing cosmologies including the Big Bang theory, but it is absurd to criticize either of these two theories on that account. Why? because, for the third time, General Relativity stands today without a single observation calling it into question. Assuming the validity of General Relativity therefore is rather like assuming the validity of algebra or calculus.

***************************************************

"And, as noted before, almost without exception, all "big bangers" are, also, "black holers" with you being a prime example."

Both of these parties know more about both entities than you do. :)

****************************************************

"And both theories rely for their validity upon assumed phenomenon, derived from mathematical equations."

There is no such thing as an "assumed phenomenon." A phenomenon is an observed, or observable occurrence. (Maybe I should just stop here....)

And the observations of stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up? And the observations of binary pulsars are being made up? Supernovae explosions, and the spectra of the elements seen glowing in the afermath... all of this is just imagined?

****************************************************
"Both theories fail to employ the scientific method: Which is to first observe a physical phenomenon and then try to explain it by known scientfic principles."

Really good theories are predictive of phenomenon as yet unobserved. Here is more expansive definition of the scientific method that encompasses the role of prediction:

In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.
Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[8])

**************************************************
Both "big bang" and "black hole" hypothesis invert the scientific method: Derive mathematical equations which you THINK represent the laws of the Universe, then imagine physical phenomenon that validate and prove the mathematical equations.

1. Give an example.

2. None of this has anything to do with what I think.

3. Dark matter and dark energy stand as absolute refutations of your assertion. You say that they "imagine physical phenomenon that validate and prove the mathematical equations." But if that were the case you NEVER would have heard anything about either dark matter or dark energy. Neither of these originated from theory. Observations proved the existence of phenomenon that were outside of the predictions of the earlier models. So you are completely wrong in this accusation. Had you leveled it at Geologists regarding publications and ideas about subduction, I would agree with you because I strongly suspect that your accusation would be true in regards to that subject matter.

***************************************************

"Then go out and try and find physical phenomenon that match what you imagined in the first place;"

Again, dark matter and dark energy are examples of the exact opposite of what you are claiming! They made observations which surprised them... they published those observations for all to see, and are now in the process of trying to figure out why the Universe is the way it is.

***************************************************
"... in addition, imagining "other" things that have to exist ("dark matter and so on) so that the first things you imagined can exist."

Point out any single thing that you think astronomers have imagined. Please do this and be specific. You can assert that their observations of the motions of stars and galaxies are in error, OR, you can assert that they err in assuming the validity of the Virial Theorem, or you can accept the Virial theorem as a theorem but disagree with the assumption that the systems of stars and galaxies to which the theorem is applied are themselves in a condition of equilibrium. There may be more options. But I don't think you realize how hard it will be for you to point out something that astronomers are imagining without good cause.


****************************************************

"At it's simplist: It's making up things in order to prove other made-up things. Of course, these come from the imagination of men that have the self-imposed illusion that because they crafted mathematical equations to "dress-up" their imaginations that somehow proves their imaginations are an accurate depiction of reality."

But that is not what happened. They observed the Universe objectively enough to recognize that galaxies and clusters thereof behave as if there is a lot more mass in them then is observable as stars and gas. They were not expecting that. And they observed that the expansion of the Universe, rather than slowing down, seemed to be speeding up. They were not expecting that either. In devising and executing the observations that revealed these things, and in publishing the results, they prove that they are innocent of the accusation you make against them.

***************************************************
"So, yes, I will continue to co-join the two terms in a single set of quotation marks."

That is rather like continuing to pronounce the word" nucular even after seeing that it is spelled nuclear.

***************************************************

diatreme states: "These tests do nothing whatsoever to question whether dark matter really exists or not."

"Hey, I'm only reporting what the scientists familiar with the scientific reports are saying and being quoted in Nature."

No, your not merely reporting something they wrote. I read your links and nothing in them supports this statement:

"This is huge because "dark matter" is intrinsically connected to "big bang, black hole" theory. If "dark matter" is scientifically established not to exist, then the whole "big bang, black hole" theory is seriously called into question, and if so, then ultimately General Relativity theory, also, is called into question as a viable theory."

***************************************************
"Don't call my statement dumb just because you are afraid to hear it."

I called it dumb because you reveal so many levels of misunderstanding that, if I were Dr. Perratt, I would be somewhat embarrassed by the way you guys get carried away. He should feel a bit like Brian in the movie: Life of Brian.

**************************************************
"diatreme, this statement is enough to show where you are coming from:"

"In the minds of the scientists who are looking for it, ANY form of matter with enough mass to explain the observations will suffice."

"In other words, anything will suffice in order to prove our theory. In short: "Whatever it takes.""

1.) If they were guilty as you accuse them, they never would have done the experiments and published the results that revealed the need to find sources of matter that were not luminous like stars.

2.) And no, not just anything will suffice. If they find a candidate, the observations of that candidate material will have to be repeatable by others, and the material that is found will have to have a certain amount of mass in each place where it is found, and it will have to be distributed in ways that are consistent with those observations which forced the search for dark matter to begin with.

**************************************************
"Of course, it's easy to imagine you see whatever you want to imagine is out there in deep space. This has been a common misstake of perception, to see what you want to see out of an ambiguous set of observations or circumstances."

I defy you to state a single instance of astronomers imagining anything, or basing anything on an imagined or ambiguous entity. Put up of retract you comment.

**************************************************

"The first injuction of the Scientific Method is to familiarize and consider all the evidence from both sides of the scientific question."

Are you sure that you accept this as a virture? If you truly LIVED that virtue, you would have saved the sic hours or so that I have spent trying to get you to consider the evidence for the views you are attacking.

**************************************************

"The next step is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both theories."

Ditto this point too. You should try this.

**************************************************
"A realistic and considered investigation of observations and measurements that falsify the theory you propose needs to be engaged in."

I keep trying to get you to present falsifying evidence for the things you criticize and you have not done so.

*************************************************

"Then a realistic and considered investigation of observations and measurements that have a tendency to suggest or prove an alternative theory needs to be engaged in."
"Failure to engage in the above procedure renders opinions and beliefs uninformed to the scientific question at hand and thus unable to render an informed and an objective opinion or belief as to the scientific question posed."

So you CONFESS AT LAST... to "render(ing) opinions and beliefs uninformed to the scientific question at hand and thus unable to render an informed and an objective opinion or belief as to the scientific question posed."

**************************************************
"This post and other posts are an example of giving the readers the freedom to familiarize themselves with the scientfic evidence. Scientific evidence they may not have been familiar with before. That's the fun part in science, investigating things one hasn't seen or been familiar with before. Learning new things, in this instance new observations that shed new light on Man's scientfic understanding of his world and, now, beyond."

Yes, let's agree that ..."new observations (can) shed new light on Man's understanding of his world."
Just to put this in terms that YOU might find agreeable: this means that Plasma theory may find things that it can explain tomorrow that it cannot explain today. And if we find one thing that it cannot explain today, that does not mean that it is a bad theory. I leave it to you to recognize that the same ethos applies to those evil, conflated twins whom you fear and dread so much.

************************************************

These statements have to be addressed:

(snips...)

"...you can't prove dark matter doesn't exist because, since it's postulated to exist without any evidence it does so..."

You do not know enough about this subject to intelligently discuss it. You should get on google and read about dark matter and the reasons why astronomers are looking for it. They did not imagine those reasons.

But I'll make one more attempt anyway. Imagine that earth were always cloudy enough to obscure the visibility of the moon. Do you think humans would be smart enough to deduce the presence of the moon without being able to see it? Think tides at seashores. Think the more subtle tides that influence even the land surface of the earth... Careful observations of these tides would reveal two components: one that is synchronized to the sun, and the other to a nearer, unseen body.

I believe that one could prove the presence of the moon without seeing it. Similarly, darkmatter is exactly the same type of problem. We sense the presence of mass that is not luminous like stars.

**************************************************
"In other words, the hypothesis of "dark matter" can't be falsified."

Sure. Just explain the excess velocities of the stars within galaxies and of galaxies within clusters of them. If you can do that, the theoretical need for dark matter disappears.

***************************************************
"every hypothesis must be able to be falsified or you can never disprove it."

I always thought that record would stand until it was broken.

--Yogi Berra

************************************************

"Not being able to disprove something in science would mean never being able to disprove man's imagination."


Oh my god! "It's like deja-vu, all over again."

***************************************************

(Of course, that's exactly how the "big bang, black hole" folks want it: NEVER BEING ABLE TO DISPROVE THEIR THEORY!)

diatreme states: "It is because of observations made by "science" that people are looking for dark matter."

"No! It is because predictions failed without the creation of "some" unknown, "dark matter". The postulate of "dark matter" was necessitated to maintain validity for the theory."

Go back to my analogy regarding the detection of the moon via observations of tides even if the Earth's clouds were too thick for the moon to be seen. Sensitive balances in the laboratory would confirm the theory of gravity, and detection of the correlation between one component of coastal tides and the sun would permit the extrapolation of the presence of the moon. Would you be a Luddite on that cloudy alternative earth and deny the moon, or would you accept the presence of the moon based on appreciation and understanding of tides?

Do yourself a favor. Spend a half hour reading about the virial theorem.

*************************************************

"If the theory had "worked out" just fine with no anomalies, do you think "big bang, black hole" folks would have conceived of "dark matter"? Of course not."

This refutes your contention above that they simply imagine things to support their theories.

***************************************************

It's simple, but for the failure of "big bang, black hole" theory, "dark matter" would never have been proposed at all!

The observations that support the presence of dark matter are independent of anything having to do with blackholes or big bang cosmology. The excess velocity effects indicating the presence of dark matter are present within our own galaxy - particularly the portions of our galaxy at very large distances from the core. Ergo, your statement is completely false.

**************************************************
"You, diatreme, have willingly set your hypothesis up in the position of not being able to be disproved."

No. That is what you are doing. What I am doing is trying to get you to honor your own statement of scientific methodology:

You wrote this: "The first injuction of the Scientific Method is to familiarize and consider all the evidence from both sides of the scientific question."

You need to know more about the stuff you are attacking before you attack it.

**************************************************
As I said before in another comment, diatreme, you are a dumb monkey.

diatreme states: "If the observations or interpretations which pointed to the need for dark matter were retracted, what excuse would you have then to ridicule Big Bang theory?"

"Well, if the need for "dark matter" were retracted, I wouldn't need to ridicule "big bang, black hole" theory because it would be discarded as "unworkable"."

This is illogical and very telling. It implies that even if there were NO ISSUE of dark matter, Big Bang cosmlogy would still be discarded. So please, double-please... tell us about this deeper, and presumably even "darker" reason that big bang cosmology is flawed. (This gets better all the time!) You have been holding out on us. You are violating the principle of "full disclosure." Step right up and claim that Nobel Prize.

****************************************************
"You see, "big bang, black hole" is unworkable without the assumption of "dark matter"."

Ahhh! We are getting somewhere. So this objection to dark matter was just a pretense?

****************************************************
"That's why "big bang, black hole" theorists proposed "dark matter" in the first place."

Deje Vu again to paraphrase the Yogi.

****************************************************
"There has to be this 'dark matter' out there for gravitational models of the Universe to work," is what the theorists said."

It is because our theories of gravity stand without a single known violation that we TRUST them and count on them in the context of the virial theorem. It is because of our trust in our understanding of gravity, that we can use those laws to probe for missing or excess matter in closed gravitating systems.

***************************************************
"diatreme, you're not helping your cause."

That presumes that you know my goals.

***************************************************

"diatreme, you are willingly in Plato's cave seeing the shadows on the wall and mistaking them for reality when they are only reflections from the fire of your imagination."

Good for you to mention Plato and his shadows. A few really advanced thinkers in early times figured out that the earth was round by looking at the shadow cast on the moon during lunar eclipses. This is a case where you could either accept the indirect evidence presented by such an observation, or you could accuse the guy of heresy or all the other stuff that you accuse astronomers of.

Anaconda said...

HOW ARGUMENTS ARE MADE WHEN A THEORY IS STARTING TO CRUMBLE

A good measurement of the health of a scientific theory is how proponents for the theory argue their side when under stress.

Do they present logical arguments or do they stretch their reasoning beyond common sense (start arguing up is down and black is white).

diatreme's November 30, 2008, 8:23 PM (preceding) comment is a good example of failed reasoning under the stress caused by a theory breaking down.

Let's take a look at some of diatreme's arguments.

diatreme presents my quote: "[T]he assumed existence of "black holes" derives out of the same set of theories that postulates the "big bang" beginning to the Universe."

diatreme comments in part: "...but it is absurd to criticize either of these two theories on that account [deriving from General Relativity]."

Of course, my quote above is not intended as a criticism, simply an organizing principle, which diatreme acknowledges is true. In others parts of my comment, I do criticize General Relativity in other passages, but diatreme makes an argument where apparently none exists -- diatreme and I agree, "big bang" and "black hole" theory are related, one of my reasons for co-joining them together in quotation marks.

diatreme presents my quote: "And both theories rely for their validity upon assumed phenomenon, derived from mathematical equations."

To which diatreme replies: "There is no such thing as an 'assumed phenomenon.' A phenomenon is an observed, or observable occurrence."

diatreme's statement is false.

Of course, an occurance or event, or object (phenomenon) can be assumed to happen or be present when in fact no such event occured or object is present.

diatreme states:

"And the observations of stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up? And the observations of binary pulsars are being made up? Supernovae explosions, and the spectra of the elements seen glowing in the afermath... all of this is just imagined?"

This issue isn't whether, "stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up?" The issue is what is the motivating force for the star's orbits? Is it strictly gravity as "big bang, black hole" theory postulates, or does electromagnetism and plasma physics play the predominate part with gravity playing some supporting role?

Or maybe the neutral question is what are the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity in the orbiting of the stars?

diatreme says, "And the observations of binary pulsars are being made up?"

Diatreme's statement has a couple of unstated assumptions embedded in his question.

One, that pulsars are as he believes them to be: neutron stars, which are assumed objects (phenomenon). And, two, that in fact these oscillating points of light (pulsars) orbit each other.

The pulsars may not orbit each other, that is an assumption. There may be some other mechanism which makes it APPEAR the pair of oscillating lights are orbiting each other. The phenomenon is too far away from Earth to make any definite conclusions.

diatreme says, "Supernovae explosions, and the spectra of the elements seen glowing in the afermath... all of this is just imagined?"

No, but the motivating causes are assumed. "Big bang, black hole" theory assumes this is caused by the exhausting of nuclear fuel in a large star, followed by gravitational collapse, which in turn causes an explosive rebound, ejecting elements out into what becomes the nebula without any influence of electromagnetism or plasma physics.

There is an alternative theory: Plasma dynamics and electromagnetic energy is responsible for the explosions: In essence there is a buildup of electrical energy, as in a capacitor, here, on Earth, then, for some unknown reason -- it's important to admit what you don't know -- a "short" happens, an electrical discharge. This causes the explosion and the ejection of elements into the nebular cloud, indeed, the explosion is the cause of the nebular cloud.

At this point, it's useful to restate a passage from my preceding comment:

"Of course, it's easy to imagine you see whatever you want to imagine is out there in deep space.

This has been a common mistake of Man's perception, to see what you want to see out of an ambiguous set of observations or circumstances.

The Scientific Method is designed to avoid just that kind of result."

diatreme presents my statement: "Both theories fail to employ the scientific method: Which is to first observe a physical phenomenon and then try to explain it by known scientfic principles."

Quite so.

diatreme responds: "Really good theories are predictive of phenomenon as yet unobserved..."

This statement needs to be qualified in part:

Theories predict where the observed phenomenon (once understood) will be found in other places, theories predict location.

Theories predict structure of one object based on the known structure of another object.

But with "big bang, black hole" theory you never have the "known structure of another object" to base a prediction on.

Electrical Universe theory provides an altenative theory of the Sun's structure and mechanism based on electrical plasma theory.

So, the problem is that "big bang, black hole" theory projects this false construct (assumed) of the Sun out onto stars outside our solar system.

But that's not all:

The predictions of "big bang, black hole" theory aren't based on the structure of known objects, rather they are based on mathematical equations which the theorists THINK represent the laws of gravity beyond this planet.

So, in reality "big bang, black hole" theory is making predictions of objects (assumptions) based on abstract mathematical equations, not based on structures of known objects.

So, really bad theories make predictions based on abstract ideas which maybe right or maybe wrong. And that's exactly what "big bang, black hole" theory does.

Again, the Scientific Method calls for making an observation of a phenomenon and using known principles, structures, or processes to derive a theory that explains the unknown phenomenon.

diatreme presents my quote: Both "big bang" and "black hole" hypothesis invert the scientific method..."

And diatreme requests: "Give an example."

The above discussion is replete with examples of inverting the process -- invent an object in one's mind, then go out and try and find it.

This is because General Relativity theory (diatreme is correct that GR is the basis for both "big bang" and "black hole" theory) is an abstract mathematical set of equations (relationships, thus the term "relativity) based on what Albert Einstein THOUGHT the law of gravity demanded. Einstein's theory was not derived from experiment, but from "thought exercises". As brilliant as Einstein was, brilliant men make mistakes.

So, all predictions from General Relativity are in violation of the Scientific Method. Based as they are on abstract mathematical relationships, as opposed to known structures, principles, or processes.

diatreme states: "Dark matter and dark energy stand as absolute refutations of your assertion."

That's laughable.

diatreme goes on to state:

"But if that were the case you NEVER would have heard anything about either dark matter or dark energy. Neither of these originated from theory. Observations proved the existence of phenomenon that were outside of the predictions of the earlier models. So you are completely wrong in this accusation."

Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" derive from the failure of a theory.

The theory failed to predict the apparent speed of expansion of the Universe (even the expansion rate can be questioned because that is based on assumptions about Redshift 'relative' motions) and the necessarily required matter to explain galaxy formation and operation based on gravity only models.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" were derived to explain why gravitational models failed to predict expected behavior.

I suppose you can say that based on observations, it became apparent that gravitaional models were wrong, unless there was some "unseen" matter and energy out in space.

In essence, the addition of "dark matter" and "dark energy" balanced out the mathematical equations.

I stand on my statements.

diatreme states:

"Again, dark matter and dark energy are examples of the exact opposite of what you are claiming! They made observations which surprised them... they published those observations for all to see, and are now in the process of trying to figure out why the Universe is the way it is."

Wrong!

The observations were not of any "dark matter" or "dark energy", simply that the Universe wasn't behaving according to abstract mathematical equations, so, assuming the abstract mathematical equations were right, then there had to be "unseen" matter and energy so the equations would still work.

That is the "FATAL CONCEIT", the abstract mathematical equations have to be right and nature... it's wrong!

Ludicrous.

If that isn't putting abstraction above observation, I don't know what is.

diatreme requests: "Point out any single thing that you think astronomers have imagined."

The discussion above and the thunderbolts.info website, by the way that is where you can see TPOD (thunderbolts picture of the day) have numerous discussions.

Please, diatreme, the article in nature questions the existence of "dark matter". If there is no "dark matter" the whole facade of General Relativity comes crashing down.

Enough if enough, I'm not going to match tit for tat.

Readers will have to decide for themselves which position has more vlaidity.

Ultimately, the real power on this website is the readers themselves.

They make their own decisions on what to believe and follow up on.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

It occured to me that a better use of your time than disputing my comments would be to read an Electric Universe interpretation of solar formation: Assembling the Solar System, 23 October 2008 (thunderbolts.info, Thunderblog), by Wallace Thornhill, a leading Electric Universe physicist.

This allows you to assess the ideas and interpretations straight from an expert on the theory.

Perhaps, it would even be food for thought.

diatreme said...

"A good measurement of the health of a scientific theory is how proponents for the theory argue their side when under stress."

You guys are in trouble.

**************************************************
"Of course, an occurance or event, or object (phenomenon) can be assumed to happen or be present when in fact no such event occured or object is present."

Yea, like the electric currents that are strong enough to whip stars around as if they possess the attractive force of 3.7 million solar masses of matter... :)

**************************************************

diatreme states:

"And the observations of stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up? And the observations of binary pulsars are being made up? Supernovae explosions, and the spectra of the elements seen glowing in the afermath... all of this is just imagined?"

"This issue isn't whether, "stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up?" "

Yes, it is. Are they observations or hallucinations?

***************************************************
"The issue is what is the motivating force for the star's orbits? Is it strictly gravity as "big bang, black hole" theory postulates, or does electromagnetism and plasma physics play the predominate part with gravity playing some supporting role?"

You have got to be kidding! Are you really serious?

***************************************************
"Or maybe the neutral question is what are the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity in the orbiting of the stars?"

So, you are NOT kidding ???

***************************************************
diatreme says, "And the observations of binary pulsars are being made up?"

"Diatreme's statement has a couple of unstated assumptions embedded in his question. One, that pulsars are as he believes them to be: neutron stars,"

No! That issue is separate. I wrote pulsars and I meant pulsars. These objects as a class have a set of common characteristics. And since one of your favorite tactics is to blame everything on mathematically-induced-presumptions... I want establish that you accept the existence of the class of pulsars as real entities. Do you or don't you?

************************************************
"(neutron stars) which are assumed objects (phenomenon)."

I have to keep asking you, have you ever seen an electron? This is REAL IMPORTANT. If you have never seen one, how do you know they exist? Do you infer their presence? If you worship an electric universe, I hope you have something besides mere presumption and inference to back up your faith in electrons.

And how about Maxwell's equations? Or are you a plasma Luddite that accepts the superiority of electromagnetism so long as it is expressed in words and songs, but never mathemetics. Does Dr. Perratt use math? Have you forgiven him?

****************************************************
"And, two, that in fact these oscillating points of light (pulsars) orbit each other."

It is absolutely astonishing how little you know about this subject! I feel like one of the Martians in the movie Mars Attacks when that kid turns on the country music.... My head feels like it is going to explode!

Are you pulling my leg? :)

***************************************************

"The pulsars may not orbit each other, that is an assumption. There may be some other mechanism which makes it APPEAR the pair of oscillating lights are orbiting each other. The phenomenon is too far away from Earth to make any definite conclusions."

That's it. This is the statement that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am wasting my time. You will either learn some basics about astronomy and astronomical observations of the past century, or you will refuse to do so.

**************************************************
diatreme says, "Supernovae explosions, and the spectra of the elements seen glowing in the afermath... all of this is just imagined?"

"No, but the motivating causes are assumed. "Big bang, black hole" theory assumes this is caused by the exhausting of nuclear fuel in a large star, followed by gravitational collapse, which in turn causes an explosive rebound, ejecting elements out into what becomes the nebula without any influence of electromagnetism or plasma physics."

Who said this: "without any influence of electromagnetism or plasma physics." ???

The gas within stars is a plasma. So what?

***************************************************

"There is an alternative theory: Plasma dynamics and electromagnetic energy is responsible for the explosions: In essence there is a buildup of electrical energy, as in a capacitor, here, on Earth, then, for some unknown reason -- it's important to admit what you don't know -- a "short" happens, an electrical discharge. This causes the explosion and the ejection of elements into the nebular cloud, indeed, the explosion is the cause of the nebular cloud."

OK. I give up. I know when I'm beat. Like that scene from O'brother, where art thou: Delmar O'Donnell says: "Them syreens did this to Pete. They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad."

What can you say to that?

ARRRGGGHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

Read the linked Thunderblog, by Wallace Thornhill.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

diatreme presents my quote:

"Of course, an occurance or event, or object (phenomenon) can be assumed to happen or be present when in fact no such event occured or object is present."

Then responds: "Yea, like the electric currents that are strong enough to whip stars around as if they possess the attractive force of 3.7 million solar masses of matter... :)"

I will add that a set of observations can be ambiguous leading to a misinterpretation of what is actually happening. So, "something" can be observed, but the wrong conclusion of what that "something" is or how it operates can be drawn, particularly when false assumptions are applied to the ambiguous set of observations.

The next quote of mine, diatreme presents is a classic case of taking the quote out of context.

The following extended quote is the entire paragraph (part of a multi-paragraph passage):

"This issue isn't whether, "stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up?" The issue is what is the motivating force for the star's orbits? Is it strictly gravity as "big bang, black hole" theory postulates, or does electromagnetism and plasma physics play the predominate part with gravity playing some supporting role?"

diatreme takes that paragraph and picks one sentence:

"This issue isn't whether, "stars orbiting the galaxies core are being made up?"

And responds: "Yes, it is. Are they observations or hallucinations?"

Of course, the rest of the paragraph makes clear MY meaning:

"...The issue is what is the motivating force for the star's orbits? Is it strictly gravity as "big bang, black hole" theory postulates, or does electromagnetism and plasma physics play the predominate part with gravity playing some supporting role?"

diatreme, so that's the quality of you comments -- take a sentence out of context and then distort the meaning hoping other readers won't bother going back or don't remember the whole paragraph which provided the context.

My next sentence in the paragrph makes clear I don't question whether stars are orbiting around the galaxy core.

Your tactics demonstrate you have no integrity -- enough said.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

Because you obviously hold out for "black holes" even as the "big bang" crashes and burns, here are two links that expose the fantasy of "black holes".

Read it and weep.

A Flickering “Black Hole”, August 9, 2006 (thunderbolts.info)

"Astronomers claim that a celestial object called GRO J1655 hides a black hole. But why does its surrounding plasma flicker 450 times a second? Because the black hole is “rotating very rapidly,” astronomers say."

And:


The Madness of Black Holes, July 30, 2006 (holoscience.com)

Time to turn off the "black hole" claptrap.