Thread: Dark Matter

Originally Posted by Bruno

I am not sure I am folowing the correct line of reasoning here, but with dark matter, we have quantifiable observations like gravitational lensing. We detect gravitational lensing, we can measure it, and from there we can say that according to relativity, there has to be a certain mass we can't detect, but which makes itself felt through gravity.

We may not understand what is causing it. It may have to do with the fact that we can only detect electromagnetism and gravity. In any case, we have something that is observable.

'God' otoh is not directly observable. You claim to have first hand associations with it, yet those claims are not observable data that can be witnessed or reproduced by independent parties.

I know, personally, other couples who have had exactly the same experience. Blessed with the same piece of the Cross, etc.

Originally Posted by xman

As I already pointed out it's invisible, observable matter.
.

No more observable than the thing that goes "bump" in the night.

All that is observable is the "bump", not what made the "bump".

Originally Posted by Seraphim

No more observable than the thing that goes "bump" in the night.

All that is observable is the "bump", not what made the "bump".

And that's why it's called "dark" matter -- just like we would need a convenient name to refer to investigating the sourrce of that nighttime bumping -- which we might call the "dark bumper". It is pointless to argue over whether or not the "dark bumper" exists. We *know* it exists or we wouldn't be investigating it.

If you are arguing from an epistemological point of view then we can apply the same argument to most anything that we need special instruments to observe -- atoms, molecules, distant galaxies, etc.. If that's the case, counter arguments about dark matter specifically are a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I know, personally, other couples who have had exactly the same experience. Blessed with the same piece of the Cross, etc.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

No more observable than the thing that goes "bump" in the night.

All that is observable is the "bump", not what made the "bump".

I can see your point. The thing is that both you and those other couples have already 'bought in' (not meant in a disrespectful way) to the faith based conclusion before making the observation. And the problem imo is that non believers do not seem to be able to make those same observations

Otoh, the 'bump in the night' aka the dark matter is something that can be observed by anyone regardless of beliefs, using a (sufficiently accurate) telescope.

Just to point out the disconnect between our respective sides of the discussion:
Your argument is like pointing to a pink elephant you say is in front of me, and me saying 'Where? There is nothing to see!' whereas my argument is like saying 'I don't know what's causing this, but there are elephant foot shaped holes in the dirt. I can't see the elephant but something is making those prints allright'.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I can't see the elephant but something is making those prints allright'.

My precious child, those were the times when you carried the elephant

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

My precious child, those were the times when you carried the elephant

Got an LOL out of that one.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

My precious child, those were the times when you carried the elephant

I am a little rusty on biblical lore, but isn't the elephant supposed to carry me in that story

EDIT: Though your version may explain why my neck was cramped yesterday ...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Hold on there.

So, gravitational lensing is occuring around a cluster of galaxies ( a likely source for mass from which to create gravitational lensing), pretty much symmetrical around said cluster of galaxies, and yet that is proof of dark matter?

Weak.

Who said anything about proof? The scientists are just trying to explain the reality they are observing. They are gathering evidence to test their hypotheses. That's how science works.

Sorry guys, I was away all weekend moving!

I think I may have found some dark matter in the boxes I had to move, because those things were *&^%&^$ HEAVY!



OK, let's get back to it:

So, let's suppose that the guys who claim to have found the dark matter halo are right, that it was caused by a head-on collision of two clusters.

So, riddle me this Batman: isn't the astronomical cosmology that we are in an expanding universe caused by the Big Bang (heretofore to be known as the BB)?


And if so, all matter sprang forth from said BB, is expanding outwards away from whatever ground zero that would have been, so how can two large clusters such as that end up on a head-on collision course?

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat Universe.

Two raisins inside a rising loaf of bread never collide.

Craig,

As far as I can tell, matter can change location relative to each other at a faster pace than the expansion of the universe. Just a few minutes ago I noticed that a chocolate chip cookie grew closer and closer in proximity with my maw until it actually became part of me. Empirical evidence that universal expansion does not prohibit collisions!