On 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
you decided to say:


Gene (May I call you Gene?),

I hope you aren't personally offended by my response,
but you were very blunt in your post and so, I will also
be quite blunt in my response. Please understand, it is
not meant as an attack.


Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number
of hypothetical entities, things that we have never
observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy
are the most prominent examples.

If they are needed to explain observations, then why
doesn't that count as being observed?

Because they weren't "observed".

They were invented from pure fantasy.

The fact is, that you are willing to believe a fairy tale and
then claim that because a fairy tale was invented, that means
that it should be counted as "observed". Huh?

I'm sorry if this offends you, but you said it, not me.

Imagine that you run across the situation that there is not
enough matter in the universe to hold it together. What do
you do?

What has been done in this particular case (and is not at all
uncommon), is to invent this "dark matter" out of sheer
imagination and without any observation whatsoever of it.

It cannot be detected. They claim that the fact that there
is a "missing mass" problem proves that it is there. Huh?

It cannot be seen. They claim that this proves that it
exists. Huh?

It cannot be measured. They claim that this is irrelevant
and that they can tell how much there is, by the amount
that's missing. Of course, when they later found out that
the numbers didn't add up, what did they do? Well, since
it cannot be confirmed to exist, let alone measured, they
just increased the amount and claimed that it was a new
finding of how much "dark matter" there is (supposedly).

But the decision was to claim that it does exist and that it
explains the problem. Then further, the claim is that it does
exist and that it has been observed. And what support is
there for this claim that it has been observed? What exact
observation has supported this "dark matter" concept?

Why that's simple! As I said already...

"There isn't enough matter in the universe to explain
the universe."

Yup! That's it! That's the *whole* of the evidence for this
"dark matter".

And so they are basically saying the following things
(and whether you want to believe it or not, this is
basically how it went)...

1) We know that there isn't enough matter in the universe
to hold it together.

2) How can we explain it? Hey! I just thought of something!
Let's claim that more matter exists that we can't see and
let's call it "dark matter".

3) When someone asks how we know and when we first detected
it, we'll tell them that it cannot be seen and cannot be
measured, because hey, it's "dark matter"! And we'll just
say that we observed it indirectly. And when they ask
how, we'll just say that we observed it, by observing that
there isn't enough matter in the universe to hold it all
together. And so, what we're REALLY doing, is claiming
that the lack of matter that caused the question, is proof
that we have solved the problem! So basically, we'll be
claiming that the question; the problem we saw, is proof
that the answer we just made up out of sheer imagination,
is the proof that it exists! And ye folks, we'll label
this as "science"!

4) Oh gee, the original numbers didn't work out and now
we've found that the figures we used don't add up,
because now we know, given our latest findings, that
more matter is needed. Oh, hey, no problem! Since
this "dark matter" that we invented can't be measured,
we'll just increase the numbers! After all, who can
tell the difference, right?

5) And what evidence will we give that there is actually more
of this "dark matter" out there? Oh, that's easy! Once
again we'll say, "Well, there isn't enough matter in the
universe, so...". (:

You buy into whatever you want. I will be critical of
whatever I want. My way is scientific. Yours is not.


Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.

Sure, physicists never come up with stuff like the neutrino. Dumbass.

They come up with "stuff like" the gluon. Do you know what
that is? As a non-scientist, probably not. And it's okay to
be ignorant of these things. Ignorant just means "uninformed"
and that can be fixed. But when you take an attitude such as
yours toward someone else, when it is obvious that you are
no scientist, nor do you appear to even be educated at all
in the various sciences, that is when it turns from ignorant,
to "willing ignorance". And this is especially apparent to
those who know that what he stated is a cold hard fact of
science. Is this your goal? To reject out of ignorance any
facts that you don't like and to proclaim this willing
ignorance as a banner, for all to see?

I don't mean to be insulting, mind you. You must bear in mind
that I am responding to your rudeness, which you base on your
ignorance. I'm sorry if that comes off harsh, but those are
your words above, not mine.

People can rail against the truth all they want, but when all
I see is insults in response to cold hard data, that tells me
that the other person doesn't much care what the truth is.
They are going to believe what they want to and call it
"science", while railing against Christians and claiming
that's what they're doing, which makes the "railer" nothing
more than a hypocrite. Again, is this your goal?

Now do you know what a "gluon" is? It is an imagined up part
of an atom, that has no evidence for its existence whatsoever
and is another example of desperate people throwing out
desperate ideas, with desperate lay people, willing to accept
whatever they throw out and who are too willingly ignorant
to question it.

Within an atom, assuming that the theory is correct (it too,
was made up), you have Protons, Neutrons and Electrons.

Proton = positive charge

Neutron = neutral

Electron = negative charge

Now since the protons are within the nucleus (which is
at the center of the atom) and since they have like charges
and since like charges repel each other and since they
couldn't explain why the protons didn't push away from
each other, rather than questioning their "invented" atom,
they instead chose to make up out of thin air, another
part of the atom, called the "gluon" and claim that it
holds them together and keeps them from flying away
from each other, which would destroy the atom.

Of course, they have yet to explain why it doesn't make
the protons literally stick together and unable to move
separately.

And yes, the name is "gluon", because it supposedly
does what it sounds like.

Now you swallow this kook, line and sinker. I choose
to question it. My way is scientific. Yours is not.

Science is based on questioning. Without questions,
we have nothing. And theories are corrected, because
someone questions them and not because they are
blindly accepted.

These ideas however, do not qualify as "theories".
They are claimed to be such, but theories require
facts that support the theory. Stating that there
is "missing mass", does not prove that it is dark
matter that makes up for the missing mass. And
so, "missing mass" cannot be claimed as a fact
that supports "dark matter". Rather, the missing
mass is itself the problem presented. One cannot
make a claim of a solution and then point to the
problem and claim it's the answer. That would be
like writing an answer to a math division problem
and when the teacher ask you to do the long division
and prove that your answer is correct, you then point
to the math problem and claim that just the fact that
a math problem exists is proof that your answer is
correct.

Huh??? Yet that's what you buy into. (:

Now you may say that the problem can be worked out
and proof can be given. I agree, but that's my point.
You can work the problem out. With this "dark matter"
issue, that cannot be done and so, all you have is the
fantasy of the desperate. (:

__

Giant Waffle

After seeing the way that usenet is, I post this word
of advice as my signature...

I don't bother with peoples' railing comments, nor with
comments meant to distract from the discussion, because
you are unable to answer the hard questions that may arise
as a response to claims that you might make, nor do I play
games with God's word.

If you wish to be rude, go find a mirror and see if the
person you see there would appreciate it. And if the
person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then you know
why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until
you learn some common decency and respect.

And yes, there is a difference between being insulting
and being direct. And no, that does not mean that being
insulting and calling it "the truth" means that you are
being direct. It means that you are being insulting.

Do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of
good men, falsely applying them to yourself, as those
who are wolves in sheep's clothing often do. (:

This obviously does not apply to everyone. Just to those
who wish to act in the manner described. To the rest,
please ignore this word of advice.