Dark Matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

What ever happened to peer review? Subjecting hypothesis to scrutiny and discourse?

---

The leading scientists are well regarded because their work is peer reviewed, and because it is subjected to scrutiny and discourse by other scientists.

I am not a "peer;" I doubt if anyone here is. I am not qualified to subject these hypothesis to scrutiny or discourse; I doubt if anyone here is. There are peer reviewed publications; if peer reviewed works are what you consider reputable, you could consult such journals and probably never read everything on any given subject. Other, qualified scientists engage in scrutiny and discourse, in general and during the review process. This is a key aspect of reputable scientific work.

I didn't mean to be offensive in my previous post, but that is how I see it. I'll respond to any questions about what I say, but I've chosen to remain otherwise uninvolved in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Well I went back and looked at the article you linked too. They never said it was a head-on collision.

---

Quote:

---

Curious about why the ring was in the cluster and how it had formed, Jee found previous research that suggested the cluster had collided with another cluster 1 to 2 billion years ago. The research, published in 2002 by Oliver Czoske of the Argelander-Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn, was based on spectroscopic observations of the cluster's three-dimensional structure. The study revealed two distinct groupings of galaxies clusters, indicating a collision between two clusters.
Astronomers have a head-on view of the collision because it occurred along Earth's line of sight. From this perspective, the dark-matter structure looks like a ring.

---

At around 2:30 on X's vid link:
YouTube - Hubblecast 05: Hubble finds ring of dark matter#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

The leading scientists are well regarded because their work is peer reviewed, and because it is subjected to scrutiny and discourse by other scientists.

I am not a "peer;" I doubt if anyone here is. I am not qualified to subject these hypothesis to scrutiny or discourse; I doubt if anyone here is. There are peer reviewed publications; if peer reviewed works are what you consider reputable, you could consult such journals and probably never read everything on any given subject. Other, qualified scientists engage in scrutiny and discourse, in general and during the review process. This is a key aspect of reputable scientific work.

I didn't mean to be offensive in my previous post, but that is how I see it. I'll respond to any questions about what I say, but I've chosen to remain otherwise uninvolved in this thread.

---

All I'm saying is that perhaps these eggheads need to re-think, or think outside of their usual box in regards to all of these invisible and theoretical things they are trying to use to make the equations work out.

All of these peers have been educated according to a similar knowledge base. Indoctrinated into uideas such as the Big Bang, black holes, string theory, etc, etc...

Maybe there is such a thing as dark matter, and maybe that indeed would explain why things appear the way they do.

But perhaps the understanding of gravity itself is flawed, and trying to make something fit the current model is barking up the wrong tree?

Maybe they need a fresh outlook, a new take on the whole shebang?



P.S.- in the interests of conducting peer review right here, I duplicated hoglahoo's experiment with outstanding result! Mmmmm MMM!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

P.S.- in the interests of conducting peer review right here, I duplicated hoglahoo's experiment with outstanding result! Mmmmm MMM!

---

I proceeded to eat two more with my eyes closed. Double blind test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

At around 2:30 on X's vid link:
YouTube - Hubblecast 05: Hubble finds ring of dark matter#

---

I still don't see it...The video said the same as the article:

"Astronomers have a head-on view of the collision because it occurred along Earth's line of sight."

It seems both the article and video are meant for laypeople so I doubt you
can infer from their wording if it was truly a head on collision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

It seems both the article and video are meant for laypeople so I doubt you
can infer from their wording if it was truly a head on collision.

---

What difference does it make?

There can still be a head-on collision in the opposite direction of expansion. The movement of the clusters due to expansion will be directly away from each other, just like it is between anything else. I don't know where the 90 degree necessity that Seraphim mentioned comes into play - was that mentioned somewhere I didn't read or listen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What difference does it make?

There can still be a head-on collision in the opposite direction of expansion. The movement of the clusters due to expansion will be directly away from each other, just like it is between anything else

---

I personally don't think it makes any difference. I just noticed that they actually didn't say it was a head-on collision. So the points Seraphim brought up were a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I proceeded to eat two more with my eyes closed. Double blind test

---

In the Universal Chocolate Chip cosmology, the walnuts represent galaxies, the sugar, flour,and butter make up the "dark matter" portion, and the chocolate chips themselves are representative of black holes-once you get within the chocolate chip "event horizon", you can't stop, and are forced to eat the entire cookie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

I personally don't think it makes any difference. I just noticed that they actually didn't say it was a head-on collision. So the points Seraphim brought up were a non-issue.

---

In the simulation betweem 2:30-2:38 you did not see a head-on collision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What difference does it make?

There can still be a head-on collision in the opposite direction of expansion. The movement of the clusters due to expansion will be directly away from each other, just like it is between anything else. I don't know where the 90 degree necessity that Seraphim mentioned comes into play - was that mentioned somewhere I didn't read or listen?

---

What I'm saying is that if the model of the Big Bang is that the universe started at a single point, and is expanding outward from there, how could something approach from the opposite direction?