Dark Matter and Punching Holes:

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by paddoboy, Sep 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat ― Quit Mucking Up My Queue

    The big joke about these discussions is the number of complaints rolling in compared to what everyone else around this site is expected to put up with. Do people understand that if we enforced the rules according to people's complaints, virtually nobody would be left?

    So let me tell you what I see, when I find this stack of back and forth complaints:

    What I see is a topic post using a news article as reference point. Indeed, my only complaint here is personal, as I would much prefer people strip out the data-tracking targets from the links they post.

    But I also see a preprint of an accepted scientific paper in the second post. The third post is an interesting proposition referring entirely to a member's own outlook, with no support.

    I see a NASA press release. So as we start to count up "points" of some abstract sort, let's note at this point it's Proposition 3 - 0 Objection.

    There is an unsupported counterpoint; DMoE checks in to make certain the situation goes downhill some, because that's pretty much all he's good for. The unsupported counterpoint meets a reiteration and an expression of the crux of disagreement; for some reason, the Icicle question comes to mind: The one thing nobody can argue is that nothing penetrated the chest cavity.

    At this point one of the disputing parties launches a personalized condemnation of another member, offering exactly no support. When presented with yet more scientific evidence, we see a reiteration of personal attack in lieu of scientific support for the counterargument. Proposition 4 - 0 Objection.

    Another paper, another attack: Proposition 5 - 0 Objection. Another iteration of the crux,another attack posted without any manner of evidence. The score remains five-nil because I didn't work that sort of deduction into the system. But it's worth noting two attack posts against the same point, neither with any scientific support.

    We see some back and forth, followed by five more articles to support the proposition; Proposition 10 - 0 Objection.

    To count the next big offering as one point understates its magnitude; counting seventy-three points would be excessive. Then again, we can go with Proposition 11 - 0 Objection, anyway, because it would also be an underestimation or underassessment to suggest that a pattern is emerging. At the end of page one (another attack) we can count the score as Proposition 11 - 0 Objection.

    Yet another attack leads off page two, and what's missing from any of these attacks is any supporting evidence. Another member attempts another attack, and this one has no science, either.

    Another article, call it twelve. And another; thirteen.

    Another attack in retort. And then another in which an author appears to reject the proposition of providing or accepting evidence And then yet another attack. Again, no evidence.

    Met by yet another scientific paper. Proposition 13 - 0 Objection.

    We might note a reply here arguing that all this information being presented "obviously hasn't caught up" with new information, but provides exactly none of that information. Again, no negative points are being assessed, but at this point we would be somewhere around minus three for this attacking, unsupported, apparently insupportable troll job.

    At some point, commiseration invokes an objection that has something to do with the moderators, yet still offers no actual scientific discussion.

    There is an hilarious bit in there where someone else enters the discussion, and an objecting member who offers nothing scientific and bases his objections, apparently, on something having to do with moderators, decides to complain about expertise.

    The main objection, however, insists on itself while still failing or refusing to offer any supporting evidence.

    We see at page two a reiteration of the crux, and again I pause to consider the Icicle argument.

    There is some personal back and forth suggesting one among the objectors really doesn't have any clue what's going on in the discussion, and the other offers yet another response to the someone else who entered the discussion, but it's just another attack against the member authoring the proposition, and offered without any scientific support.

    What follows is a series of unsupported personal attacks as primary objection; we get a scientific paper that seems to smack down the unsupported counterpoint about information failing to catch up; it is a paper already posted to this thread the day before. And, quite honestly, if we should assess negative points, that would certainly be another. Meanwhile, that reiteration is followed up with another scientific paper. Proposition 14 - 0 Objection.

    There is a response playing to the gallery, but offering no evidence whatsoever. Another paper; fifteen.

    At this point the Objection seems to fold, begging the Proposition to drop out of the discussion. Again, I should be assessing negative points, but at this point we're somewhere between minus four and, oh, I don't know, minus ten? Counting up all these attack posts without support suggests an interesting sum. Another one of these blithering, bawling attack posts in lieu of a proper scientific objection. A post positing an objection without any supporting evidence.

    At the point we begin this exploration, it would seem the current status is #60, in which an objecting member comments on the personal aspects of the dispute, but offers no support for the objection.

    The score, at a minimum, appears to be Proposition 15 - 0 Objection, and this is simply one basic definition, and as to that, here's the tricky part:

    If the Objection wishes to be taken credibly, then the Objection must necessarily give scientific address to the Proposition.

    Because you say so is not a sufficient scientific argument.​

    Fifteen-nil sounds bad, but it could also be eighty-six over zed. Or something between four and twenty points to the negative for the Objection, but that's a different scale.

    The problem is that for all anyone wants to object, there is nothing to support the objection but egotism.

    So let us try, please, the obvious: Members should not need to be reminded that "argument" means more than petulant sloth.

    It's like in political dispute or artistic criticism, when every once in a while we encounter advocates who behave as if "free speech" means "words devoid of any value". I mean, yeah, we get it, being utterly meaningless and, functionally, a detriment to the human species is a person's right according to free speech, but neither is that the whole of what constitutes free speech.

    And in questions of free speech, it helps to actually bring sausage to a sausage fight. It's one thing to act like a child pretending to imitate parents for the thrill of believing one is scolding another, but in an actual sausage fight you're going to need something meatier than petulant fantasy.

    Anybody who wants to make the point that the Proposition is wrong ought to be able to provide some manner of scientific evidence and argument, and after this extended trolling tantrum in lieu of a proper Objection I am not inclined to tolerate any excuses. The Objection needs to either get its dignity and intelligence together or else cease and desist.
    origin likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    By "some", I hope you mean "scientists", because the interpretation and inference of observations are the entirety of evidence.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Highlighting some extracts from the following paper on the history of DM:
    D. The WIMP Paradigm
    "By the end of the 1980s, the conclusion that most of the mass in the Universe consists of cold and non-baryonic particles had become widely accepted, among many astrophysicists and particle physicists alike. And while alternatives continued to be discussed (see the following two chapters), cold dark matter in the form of some unknown species of elementary particle had become the leading paradigm. In addition to massive neutrinos (sterile or otherwise), supersymmetric particles (neutralinos, gravitinos, sneutrinos, axinos) and axions were each widely discussed as prospective dark matter candidates. And as the evidence in favor of non-baryonic dark matter became increasingly compelling, an ever greater number of particle physicists began to openly speculate about the nature of this invisible substance. The result of this was a long and diverse list of exotic possibilities, ranging from topological defects produced through spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early Universe (monopoles, cosmic strings) [177], to macroscopic configurations of quark matter (centimeter-scale “nuggets”, with nuclear-scale densities) [339], and even “pyrgons” (Kaluza-Klein excitations) that could appear within the context of models with extra spatial dimensions [185]".
    The above situation still stands from what I am able to gather. The search for what was always going to be difficult to detect is continuing: [ supersymmetric particles (neutralinos, gravitinos, sneutrinos, axinos ] that's science afterall.
    "This observation, combined with theoretical arguments in favor of the existence of new physics at or around the electroweak scale, have elevated weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) [305] to the leading class of candidates for dark matter11. WIMPs have been the subject of thousands of theoretical studies, leading to the refinement of many calculations, including that of the dark matter’s thermal relic abundance [137, 143, 300]. Furthermore, WIMPs (and to a somewhat lesser degree, axions) have motivated an expansive experimental program that continues to this day. With the advent of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and ever more sensitive astrophysical experiments, many believe that the moment of truth has come for WIMPs: either we will discover them soon, or we will begin to witness the decline of the WIMP paradigm"
    an example of that science continuing.
    "As the evidence in favor of dark matter in galaxies and galaxy clusters accumulated, more and more astronomers began to contemplate what might make up this faint material. To many astronomers and astrophysicists, the most obvious possibility was that this missing mass might consist of compact objects that were much less luminous than – but otherwise qualitatively similar to – ordinary stars. Possibilities for such objects included planets, brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Kim Griest would later coin the term “MACHOs” – short for massive astrophysical compact halo objects – to denote this class of dark matter candidates, in response to the leading alternative of weakly interacting massive particles, “WIMPs”. Although there is a consensus today that MACHOs do not constitute a large fraction of the dark matter, opinions differ as to which lines of evidence played the most important role in reaching that conclusion (for an example of some of the very early arguments that had been made against MACHOs as dark matter, see Ref. [152]). That being said, two lines of investigation would ultimately prove to be particularly important in resolving this question: searches for MACHOs using gravitational microlensing surveys, and determinations of the cosmic baryon density based on measurements of the primordial light element abundances and of the cosmic microwave background"
    Supports of course exactly what all reputable references have been saying: While MACHO's always did and always will play a part, WIMP's still are the prime canditate, and needed to explain our observations.
    That opinion and research was boosted by the following.......
    "After the discovery of MACHOs in 1993, some thought that the dark matter puzzle had been solved. But alas, it was not to be. Over a period of 5.7 years, the MACHO Collaboration measured the light curves of 40 million individual stars, identifying between 14 and 17 candidate microlensing events. This was well above their expected background rate, and lead them to conclude that between 8% and 50% of the Milky Way’s halo mass consisted of compact objects, most of which had masses in the range of 0.15 to 0.9 M [21]. After collecting data for 6.7 years, however, the EROS Collaboration had identified only one microlensing candidate event, allowing them to place an upper limit of 8% on the halo mass fraction in MACHOs [193, 309]. Compact objects, at least within the mass range probed by microlensing surveys, do not appear to dominate the missing mass in the Milky Way’s halo".
    The paper goes on and discusses primordial BH's candiatates and even MOND.

    I would like to thank Tiassa for his post and "intervention" and would like to apologise to the forum as a whole for the debacle that this thread has turned out to be.
    Though deep in my heart I realize that the vast majority of members are not swayed and hoodwinked by unsupported nonsense, a stubborn streak in me tells me that they at all times need to be refuted.
    In saying that after today, I will be away for around 12 days due to an offer that was too good to refuse, although costing me a pretty penny or two.
    I am off on a scuba diving trip in what is known as the Namena Marine Reserve and nearby reefs in Fiji: I will be away from all mobiles, computers and other mod cons for that period.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    To follow up with Tiassa's post above - on a personal level, I am sick and fucking tired of the petulant whining, whinging, and general near-obsessive and childish attacks going on in threads attempting to make a point citing legitimate scientific articles.

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear - if you DO NOT like, agree, or trust actual science done by people who have dedicated their lives to pursuing knowledge... then stay out of the science subforums and go trawl your shitposts in the pseudo-science sections where it belongs... at this point, I consider the warnings pretty well done - it will be deleted posts and issued points from here on out.

    If those of who you who are against mainstream science have a counterpoint to make, then bloody well make it. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and you just might learn something.

    origin likes this.
  8. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    PhysBang, Tiassa and Kittamaru:

    In the Science Method there is the requirement of reality and logical consistency of interpretations; else confirmation biased interpretation according to one's theory and assumptions, while ignoring equally possible alternative and/or Occam's Razor principle based interpretations, are open to scientific scrutiny and cannot be claimed as exclusive explanations. This is exactly what happened with the initial bicep2 exercise. Lessons were leant by many due to that confirmation biased interpretations fiasco. Some have yet to learn those lessons. Apparently you, paddoboy, Kittamaru and Tiassa are among those who have yet to learn that lesson before spouting personal opinions based on mischaracterizations and uninformed (on the science and discussion points proper) which only enable the poster who is expert at that by now (as can be seen by the insidious effect his clutter and irrelevant personal propaganda and mischaracterizations and evasions have had on the minds and objectivity of Kittamaru and Tiassa). It is a hopeless situation when proper argument on topic against one poster who does everything but, is made even more difficult by his 'friends' in the moderator class who are themselves incompetent in the scientific issues and points being discussed, yet they feel free and secure in their mod status to issue improper and ill informed threats based on their own confirmation biased 'reading' and coming to conclusions which which bear no relation to the actual facts. It's like adding their own unwanted confusion upon existing confusion is encouraged here by those whose job should be to help minimize it issuing from the source who causes all the kerfuffle with his irrelevant and mischaracterization tactics against the person while ignoring the actual science point. But never mind; thanks anyway for your kind attention, guys/gals. Best.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2016
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The BICEP2 experiment obviously overlooked the dust contamination problem and the physicists involved certainly jumped the gun: The "mistake" though was rectified and moderated by again, mainstream science: Not unprofessional people who seem to have a general anti science agenda.
    And of course to cynically apply the BICEP2 incident [which was rectified in a short space of time] over all of science is simply being deconstructive and unrealistic.
    In this issue as the many papers dictate, DM is a necessary component of 21st century cosmology, and remains so.
    It was always going to be difficult to detect and reported articles by me on recent failures to detect it, testify to that fact: That is the simple fact that it is going to be hard to detect: Not that it does not exist.
    That at this stage is the present state of the game as far as DM is concerned.
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Bold claims - now post and cite your supporting evidence, which you have continually failed to do... otherwise, all you have is your own claims and rhetoric, and that doesn't cut the mustard.
  11. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Note the following:

    Again the above poster demonstrates his confirmation biased interpretation of the history of what happened re bicep2 fiasco.

    He mischaracterizes the situation as 'being corrected by mainstream', but fails to acknowledge that NON_mainstream observers were first onto the debacle; and only months later did 'mainstream' deign to actually tackle that fiasco seriously.

    Moreover, the point is lost on the above poster, that IF the bicep2 'mainstream' team of scientists were following the scrupulous scientific method principles, and were not so obviously confirmation biased motivated, then they would NOT have made the interpretation they made based on obviously dodgy exercise an data set, let alone announced and claimed to have detected "primordial" grav-waves signal.

    So the fact that they announced and claimed such is a demonstration of the mainstream NOT being scientific an proper. Yet the NON- mainstream observers who called them out almost immediately were disparaged personally (until the mainstream saw they were correct).

    Now the moderators will just ignore all that, and read paddoboy's confirmation biased 'version' of what happened, and they will bring their own confirmation biased and ill informed opinion to support paddoboy and attack/threaten the correct poster who points out the confirmation biased version. I hope that this time they prove better and more worthy of their moderator position and power. Thanks anyway. Best.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    July 1st: 2016


    We show that the recently measured UV luminosity functions of ultra-faint lensed galaxies at z ≈ 6 in the Hubble Frontier Fields provide an unprecedented probe for the mass mX of the warm dark matter (WDM) candidates independent of baryonic physics. Comparing the measured abundance of the faintest galaxies with the maximum number density of dark matter halos in WDM cosmologies sets a robust limit of mX … 2.9 keV for the mass of thermal relic WDM particles at a 1σ confidence level, mX … 2.4 keV at 2σ, and mX … 2.1 keV at 3σ. These constraints are independent of the baryonic physics involved in galaxy formation and constitute the tightest constraints on WDM particle mass derived to date. We discuss the impact of our results on the production mechanism of sterile neutrinos. In particular, if sterile neutrinos are responsible for the 3.5 keV line reported in observations of X-ray clusters, our results firmly rule out the Dodelson–Widrow production mechanism and yield msterile  6.1 keV for sterile neutrinos produced via the Shi–Fuller mechanism.


    WDM particles are a hypothesized form of DM possibly existing between CDM and HDM. Neutrinos and gravitinos are two of these WIMP like candiatates.
  13. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member


    You've made two faux pas already because of your own confirmation bias and ill informed addition to the confusion and clutter and mischaracterizations. Please don't compound your previous errors by pretending to actually understand the scientific issues and points when you obviously do not (leave that to the mischaracterization, confusion and misunderstanding 'expert' paddoboy; you've done enough damage already by enabling him with your ill informed support and 'rant'; let those whom he trolls and personally disparages while evading the science point educate him in his errors against the science method etc.; and NO, irrelevant links blizzard and off-topic and irrelevant distractions and evasions are no substitute for the objective and relevant science method/discussion). Thanks. Best.
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Considering your NUMEROUS personal attacks against paddoboy and others (in this thread alone), refusal to post any sort of evidence to back your claims, and continued whining about the moderation of this site... I think its safe to say you really don't want to be here any more... and given your present attitude, that is something I'm more than happy to oblige.
    origin likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page