Fifth "Dark" Force?

This teaser for a subscribers-only article about a possible
new force peculiar to dark matter only is going to need
some discussion here.

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...ark-force.html

xanthian.

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
This teaser for a subscribers-only article about a possible
new force peculiar to dark matter only is going to need
some discussion here.

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...k-matter-gets-
its-own-dark-force.html

One can establish anything by invoking a force which doesn't obey known
physics to account for the behaviour of a form of matter which doesn't
obey known physics. But is it science?



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan

This teaser for a subscribers-only article about a possible
new force peculiar to dark matter only is going to need
some discussion here.

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...ark-force.html

One can establish anything by invoking a force which doesn't obey known
physics to account for the behaviour of a form of matter which doesn't
obey known physics. But is it science?

Umm, "teleconnection"???

Also, _all_ the currently accepted forces were
once new to science, and everything below the
size level of gross matter was once new to
science, so your argument doesn't hold much
water.

xanthian.

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan

This teaser for a subscribers-only article about a possible
new force peculiar to dark matter only is going to need
some discussion here.

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...0-dark-matter-
gets-its-own-dark-force.html

One can establish anything by invoking a force which doesn't obey known
physics to account for the behaviour of a form of matter which doesn't
obey known physics. But is it science?

Umm, "teleconnection"???

That is not a force. That is a proposed answer to unresolved questions
concerning the unification of quantum theory and general relativity. In
fact it does appear to be a uniquely consistent resolution.

You may like to know, btw, since you raised this point some while ago,
that while the motion of an individual star cannot be determined with
sufficient accuracy to test the teleconnection prediction, I am engaged
in analysing the Doppler and proper motions local stars for which there
is an unbiassed database of thousands, and having none of the ambiguity
or the lack of homogeneity of the SN data sets. This time it does look
like a conclusive result is possible. I will let you know what that
result is in due course.

Also, _all_ the currently accepted forces were
once new to science, and everything below the
size level of gross matter was once new to
science, so your argument doesn't hold much
water.

True. But before it was meaningful to discuss such forces and such
matter, there was clear empirical evidence both for its existence and
its behaviour. In contrast the evidence for Cold Dark Matter and its
behaviour is about as clear as the evidence for Phlogiston, and I don't
think that was scientific either.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:

In contrast the evidence for Cold Dark Matter and
its behaviour is about as clear as the evidence
for Phlogiston

You know, considering that you recommend so heavily
in your disputes with Chalky and John Bell for
deference to the known experts when it comes to
standard candle quality measures, velocity error
bars, and other data, which support your analyses,
it seems a bit self serving that you can be so much
in denial on the growing evidence from rafts of
other, equally skilled experts that cold dark matter
exists, and that only a limited amount of it can be
MACHOs, evidence that seemingly confounds your
theories.

Consult Ted's just posted URL,

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107248

for both example direct content, and a long, long
list of references on the subject.

That particular evidence, moreover, is right here at
home in the Local Group, not in galaxies far, far
away where accuracy of standard candles is
exceptionally important. Having it here, and using
the "least astonishment" that probably what we see
here is pretty typical of the universe, makes it
likely that dark matter is everywhere, not just here
where we live, and surely not of "Phlogiston
credibility".

The recent Hubble data and image from survey of the
dark matter lensing in a narrow window toward the
universe is pretty convincing on an
"authoritativeness" level as well:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2...mats/print.jpg
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../2007/01/full/

considering that even rating exceptionally scarce and
valuable Hubble time is already an indication of great
respect from other astronomers.

How about if you start letting the data play on an even
field, instead of one so severely tilted toward your
theories?

xanthian.

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:

In contrast the evidence for Cold Dark Matter and
its behaviour is about as clear as the evidence
for Phlogiston

You know, considering that you recommend so heavily
in your disputes with Chalky and John Bell for
deference to the known experts when it comes to
standard candle quality measures, velocity error
bars, and other data, which support your analyses,
it seems a bit self serving that you can be so much
in denial on the growing evidence from rafts of
other, equally skilled experts that cold dark matter
exists, and that only a limited amount of it can be
MACHOs, evidence that seemingly confounds your
theories.

As I said in that thread, the bottom line is one consults the facts, not
the experts. In that particular case the facts fitted what the bulk of
the experts said, not what the one expert that Chalky and John Bell
wanted to cite as an authority.

Consult Ted's just posted URL,

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107248

for both example direct content, and a long, long
list of references on the subject.

I am very familiar with the subject.

That particular evidence, moreover, is right here at
home in the Local Group, not in galaxies far, far
away where accuracy of standard candles is
exceptionally important. Having it here, and using
the "least astonishment" that probably what we see
here is pretty typical of the universe, makes it
likely that dark matter is everywhere, not just here
where we live, and surely not of "Phlogiston
credibility".

Precisely of that level imv. Worse, actually, because phlogiston was not
in conflict with scientific knowledge at the time. But it did have many
self contradictory properties swept under the carpet, in so far as I
know, and that does make it very similar.

The recent Hubble data and image from survey of the
dark matter lensing in a narrow window toward the
universe is pretty convincing on an
"authoritativeness" level as well:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2...mats/print.jpg
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../2007/01/full/

Not in the least. These is just an interpretation of data according to
laws. It may be no better than trying to estimate distances while
wearing fish eyed lense goggles.


How about if you start letting the data play on an even
field,

There's nothing wrong with the data. The issue is how should it be
interpreted.




Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Despite repeated pooh-poohing from Charles Francis,
apparently the rest of the scientific community has
no particular problem anticipating that dark matter
and dark energy are going to require some rewriting of
the rules of physics.

This eminently readable popularization of the
issues:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...CA562C33C4F03C

says in part:

"Not only does dark energy appear to make up the
bulk of the universe, but its existence, if it
stands the test of time, will probably require the
development of new theories of physics."

Pay special attention to the overview and sidebars,
which are also informative.

FWIW

xanthian.

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Despite repeated pooh-poohing from Charles Francis,
apparently the rest of the scientific community has
no particular problem anticipating that dark matter
and dark energy are going to require some rewriting of
the rules of physics.

This eminently readable popularization of the
issues:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...leID=1356B82B-
E7F2-99DF-30CA562C33C4F03C

says in part:

"Not only does dark energy appear to make up the
bulk of the universe, but its existence, if it
stands the test of time, will probably require the
development of new theories of physics."

Of course we already know that we need to develop a new theory of
physics, and have done for about seventy years since quantum theory and
general relativity are not compatible. All I have been saying is that
Cold Dark matter and dark energy are symptomatic of the type of thing
which arises when there is something wrong in the model used to describe
physics. They do indeed require some rewriting of the rules of physics.

As far as I know the only rewriting of the rules of physics to date
which unifies general relativity and quantum theory in a consistent
model is the teleconnection. I have tested numerous empirical
predictions of the teleconnection and found them consistent with
observation in a universe with neither cold dark matter nor dark energy.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:

Of course we already know that we need to develop
a new theory of physics, and have done for about
seventy years since quantum theory and general
relativity are not compatible. All I have been
saying is that Cold Dark matter and dark energy
are symptomatic of the type of thing which arises
when there is something wrong in the model used to
describe physics. They do indeed require some
rewriting of the rules of physics.

So were and did special and general relativity.

In the minds of most working astronomers, dark
matter and energy _are_ the needed changes.

You are falling for the old logical trap that when
something is not understood (here the formulation
that will blend quantum and gravity concerns), that
lack of understanding constitutes affirmative
evidence for unlikely explanations.

That simply isn't true, never has been, whether the
resulting unlikely explanation of what isn't
understood is deities or teleconnections.

As far as I know the only rewriting of the rules
of physics to date which unifies general
relativity and quantum theory in a consistent
model is the teleconnection. I have tested
numerous empirical predictions of the
teleconnection and found them consistent with
observation in a universe with neither cold dark
matter nor dark energy.

This seems to be part of the same syndrome that has
you ignoring/culling the evidence that disagrees
with you in your discussions with Chalky and John
Bell.

There's _lots_ of very good, thoroughly peer
reviewed evidence for dark matter, and more arriving
constantly. That's why it has become the
overwhelmingly held opinion among practicing
cosmologists.

http://images.google.com/images?q=hu...ark.matter+map

Can you really look at a cold dark matter map
[developed by 70-odd scientists who can "do the
math" and are practicing astronomers of the
reputation rank that rate Hubble time], covering
half the span of time, that even shows cold dark
matter collapsing over time from its own gravity,
shows it lensing the distant stars, shows it both in
and between galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and
simply _ignore_ its reality, and claim there is _no
such evidence_?

What, for you, would _constitute_ evidence, if that
survey does not?

"Teleconnection" is so far only a working theory in
your own mind, and your frequent confessions that
you are learning astronomical theory and data as you
go along, while at the same time the persistent
evidence that you just ignore facts inconvenient to
your theories, doesn't hold out much hope that
teleconnection is ever going to be a theory anywhere
_but_ your mind.

How you are working isn't how science is done, at
least not "real science". Your "teleconnection"
theory is judged now and will be judged forever
after on how much like a scientist you function in
creating that theory, including that all available
evidence was included/considered in checks that it
"worked".

You need desperately much to internalize the concept
that _one_ confounding datum sinks a theory, and
stop ignoring the ones that do or will sink yours.

FWIW

xanthian.

[This preference of yours for ignoring
contrary evidence has strong explanatory
power for your recent participation in
creating a (_moderated_ for the love of
Chaos) Usenet newsgroup dedicated to kook
science, as if Usenet needed the black eye
you've just given it.]

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:

Of course we already know that we need to develop
a new theory of physics, and have done for about
seventy years since quantum theory and general
relativity are not compatible. All I have been
saying is that Cold Dark matter and dark energy
are symptomatic of the type of thing which arises
when there is something wrong in the model used to
describe physics. They do indeed require some
rewriting of the rules of physics.

So were and did special and general relativity.

Note that they were produced by a mathematical theorist.

In the minds of most working astronomers, dark
matter and energy _are_ the needed changes.

Working astronomer's, by and large, are not equipped to deal with the
mathematical issues which arise in the unification of quantum theory and
general relativity. That is the domain of the mathematical physicist.

You are falling for the old logical trap that when
something is not understood (here the formulation
that will blend quantum and gravity concerns), that
lack of understanding constitutes affirmative
evidence for unlikely explanations.

Actually not, a) because I do understand a formulation that does blend
quantum theory and gravity, and b) because it produces clear predictions
which include the explanations I have given. This is a matter of
mathematics.


As far as I know the only rewriting of the rules
of physics to date which unifies general
relativity and quantum theory in a consistent
model is the teleconnection. I have tested
numerous empirical predictions of the
teleconnection and found them consistent with
observation in a universe with neither cold dark
matter nor dark energy.

This seems to be part of the same syndrome that has
you ignoring/culling the evidence that disagrees
with you in your discussions with Chalky and John
Bell.

There wasn't any evidence that disagreed with me. Actually, some of the
evidence I "culled" as you put it favoured the teleconnection. In
particular the HZST data did. Nonetheless, it was not possible to
combine it with the other datasets on purely statistical grounds.

There's _lots_ of very good, thoroughly peer
reviewed evidence for dark matter, and more arriving
constantly. That's why it has become the
overwhelmingly held opinion among practicing
cosmologists.

It is all based on the analysis of redshift and/or lensing.

http://images.google.com/images?q=hu...ark.matter+map

Can you really look at a cold dark matter map
[developed by 70-odd scientists who can "do the
math" and are practicing astronomers of the
reputation rank that rate Hubble time], covering
half the span of time, that even shows cold dark
matter collapsing over time from its own gravity,
shows it lensing the distant stars, shows it both in
and between galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and
simply _ignore_ its reality, and claim there is _no
such evidence_?

Of course. They can do the math of classical general relativity, but
they cannot, as yet do the math of the teleconnection. When that math is
done it will produce an entirely different map. I wouldn't mind betting
that it produces a map with no cold dark matter.

What, for you, would _constitute_ evidence, if that
survey does not?

The inconsistency between lensing profiles and rotation curves
referenced in my earlier post constitutes evidence. I am shortly going
to release some fairly conclusive evidence, which you will be able to
test yourself based on online stellar databases.

You need desperately much to internalize the concept
that _one_ confounding datum sinks a theory, and
stop ignoring the ones that do or will sink yours.

I suggest you read the references I gave you on lensing profiles and
apply the criterion yourself.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email