Sure I would... They call it dark matter because they can't see it and don't know what it is. Your evidence is as good as anybody's Besides, you're my friend, and I ALWAYS believe my friends.
excon
This post was edited by excon at March 10, 2017 5:53 PM MST
You think like me. I once asked a question here about it being a missing hole in an equation they couldn't solve. That caused quite a stir and I got some nasty answers. I am still working on the proof using logic and not letting the math get in my way. Thanks Shipmate.
This post was edited by Element 99 at March 10, 2017 1:58 PM MST
Let me amend that, because it sounds like im being disrespectful. I mean that the level necessary to tech high school, or undergraduate studies is not necessarily the level I would consider trustworthy in terms of high theoretical physics. Im not saying that you personally, are unprepared, but that's what I'd do.
I don't feel insulted by your. Your points are sceptical but valid. response. I taught it at two levels in HS. I took college classes up through quantum physics and differential equations. Obviously I have forgotten most of the upper level stuff and most of the math through disuse. My "proof" will only use logic and simple math of the Laws of Physics so that anyone with some knowledge of the subject could understand it. All I have to do is get it sorted out in my head before I can write it down.
Is this not the same as the proposition that a god exists because some old book says so? I think it is. How many examine the case against? It is all about the evidence. Make a credible case. Then I can render an informed decision. As I understand it, dark matter is a developing theory, one of many, that keeps the space nerds gainfully employed and staring skyward. Personally in the scheme of our little lives down here on the blue dot, I see the entire precept as useless. I would willingly examine further evidence to the contrary.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 10, 2017 1:59 PM MST
You know, When you categorise the research into the Dark Matter/Energy as useless and which only purpose is to keep geeks employed? Isn't that the whole point of science? To propose models that would explain the universe around us? Couldn't we say the same about all the theoretical and hypothetical work done on any new technology or medical advance? Some concepts will eventually be accepted and others won't. And that's ok. The mere.proving wrong of the theory, if it happens, would still be considered an advancement and hardly useless. Do you think im wrong, Z?
I limit that comment only to the pursuit of dark matter theories and how I personally rank their importance in the great scheme of our presence on earth. A diversion. Food for a select group, and I bid them well in its consumption. For ME, myself, I find it quite useless. But my opinion on this isn't set in stone; as I said, I would willingly examine evidence to the contrary.
I don't presume to cast that net over any other endeavors of science and I remain a staunch advocate of science. As I think we both can agree, the advancements of science and its products are among the greatest achievements of our race.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 10, 2017 3:19 PM MST
You are undertaking a Herculean task---I wish you well.
When you prove your theory by logic and the Laws of Physics, please address the following quote by Steven Hawking and save me the trouble of asking additional questions:
"The missing link in cosmology is the nature of dark matter and dark energy," Hawking said in his address. Citing data from recent observations, he noted that "normal matter is only 5 percent of the energy density of the known universe; 27 percent is dark matter, 68 percent is dark energy.” Apr 18, 2013
You don't need to prove anything. It is documented that dark matter was invented by Ian Oort in 1932 to fudge his data to agree with his theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#History
Incredibly, everybody accepts this as a proven fact. Some people will even tell you that dark matter has been observed, even though by definition it can not be observed.
It's religious: the whole world has been possessed by a spirit of bonkers.
I use Stephen Hawking's idea, that a good theory 1) accounts for a large body of observations and 2) makes accurate predictions. But at any time, it takes only one new observation incompatible to send the theory out the window! (Or at least require modifications.)
So far (as I understand), what they call "dark matter" has been found to bend light just like visible matter. But who knows, this mysterious "stuff" might end up taking us in a whole new direction altogether, just like quantum theory, relativity, and fractal geometry all have done...
* * * Therefore I would love to see your proof, and that is because I find your thought processes interesting and reliable.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 11, 2017 10:31 AM MST
Of course I would. Logic is logic regardless of your credentials. Correct me if I'm wrong but Einstein only had a four year degree and was called an 'inattentive" student. That implies to me that he had about the same grade average I did. Would you be able to express your proof simply enough for a biologist to understand? I am working on a proof myself that spontaneous biogenesis from non-living matter is improbable to the point of being impossible according to the statistical definition. Would you believe me?????????
excon 