Let's talk about Islam

[thenexttodie]

if we define dark matter as, a source of gravity that cant be observed there are at least 2 independent lines of evidence that prove the existence of dark matter

1 there is not enough regular matter for keep the galaxies spinning

In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-g...cisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/

2 gravitation lenses, we do see a distortion of space that is not caused by observed matter.

Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift : Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

 

[Deleted member 619]

Observations of galaxies, especially smaller galaxies, in which the stars in the halo are orbiting the galactic centre so fast that they should escape to infinity.

Isn't this just making something up in order to make your model of cosmology work? Black holes are said to only make up I think less than 20% of all supposed dark matter.

No, it isn't just made up. I've answered this here before:

We do indeed have direct evidence for dark matter. We don't know what it is, but we know it's there. What he actually said was that there was no direct evidence that dark matter dominated clusters or that it provided sufficient energy density to result in a flat universe.

Dark matter is a placeholder. It's the name we give to an effect that doesn't match our expectations regarding the orbits of stars in the outer edges of galaxies, especially small galaxies that rotate quickly, because given the amount of matter we can actually detect, these stars are travelling too quickly to be gravitationally bound to their galaxies. That means that either there is something wrong with our picture of gravity, or there's something there that we can't see that's exerting sufficient gravitational influence to keep those stars in their orbits. Whatever the solution is to these anomalous observations, the effect, which has been observed, is called dark matter. That's why I say that dark matter is real, and not speculative. The term itself is a matter of historical contingency, arising from confidence that our model of gravity is largely correct, stemming from the fact that it's withstood huge amounts of testing. The status of dark energy is similar. It's real, we just don't know what it is yet. The proposed solutions are many and varied, including WIMPs, MACHOs, an incorrect understanding of gravity, and ordinary matter residing on an adjacent brane, and ALL of them are called dark matter, because dark matter is simply what we call the observed effect.

Again, this just sounds like pure speculation. They have no direct evidence but they are certain that something exists that they can't detect. I'm hoping someone here could explain this to me like I'm 5 years old, because I'm not getting it.

You've grasped the wrong end of the stick here. There certainly is direct evidence for the existence of dark matter, we just don't know what it is yet. As for what Krauss is saying there, he's correct. We know there's more mass than we can see, because we can see stars that are orbiting so quickly that they should be escaping into space, because there isn't enough ordinary matter to hold onto them at such speeds, and we can even tell how much matter we'd need, and we're short by a massive amount (we can see only about 16% of what's required to keep them in orbit). Whatever's there doing this, it can't be ordinary matter, because it doesn't interact electromagnetically in any part of the spectrum (it doesn't emit or reflect photons).

 

[Deleted member 619]

if we define dark matter as, a source of gravity that cant be observed there are at least 2 independent lines of evidence that prove the existence of dark matter

1 there is not enough regular matter for keep the galaxies spinning

In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-g...cisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/

This paper never survived peer-review. The lead researcher studies MOND, which is known to be hugely problematic in explaining the CMBR, among other things.

2 gravitation lenses, we do see a distortion of space that is not caused by observed matter.

Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift : Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

And this is nothing to do with the subject. It's about gravitational lensing. Oh, and it's bollocks as well.

 

[Gnug215]

Soooo...


Islam?

 

[thenexttodie]

In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-g...cisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/

This paper never survived peer-review.

What do you mean?

2 gravitation lenses, we do see a distortion of space that is not caused by observed matter.

Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift : Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

And this is nothing to do with the subject. It's about gravitational lensing.

Do you see the reference to gravitational lensing there in the first 2 words in my quote of Leroy? (You know, the quote I was replying to?)

 

[Gnug215]

SSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo.....







Islam??

 

[thenexttodie]

SSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo.....







Islam??

Does this mean Hackenslash is not allowed to respond to my last post?

 

[Gnug215]

SSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo.....







Islam??

Does this mean Hackenslash is not allowed to respond to my last post?

No, it means that this thread is getting derailed, and if you guys want to continue this discussion, you could make a new thread.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

SSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo.....







Islam??

A former president once said it was the religion of peace.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What do you mean?

It hasn't made it to publication. Do you not know what peer-review is?

Having had time to read the paper properly, I can see several reasons why it wouldn't, not least that, absent dark matter, baryon acoustic oscillations would have different magnitudes.

Do you see the reference to gravitational lensing there in the first 2 words in my quote of Leroy? (You know, the quote I was replying to?)

Gravitational lensing isn't reliant on dark matter, only mass. Also, did you miss the bit where it was bollocks?

BTW, Gnug is correct. If you want to discuss this further, probably best to take it elsewhere, such as HERE.

 

[Gnug215]

SSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo.....






Islam??

A former president once said it was the religion of peace.

Hehe, yep. While that was nice of him, it was still quite weird.

I don't even know how the moniker started. When was Islam ever a religion of peace?

And even more so, when was it ever a more peaceful religion over all the other ones? Sure, Christianity may have it beat, historically speaking, but what about all the other ones?
It's a bit like... calling Christianity the religion of Pro Choice or something.

 

[thenexttodie]

What do you mean?

It hasn't made it to publication. Do you not know what peer-review is?

Having had time to read the paper properly, I can see several reasons why it wouldn't, not least that, absent dark matter, baryon acoustic oscillations would have different magnitudes.

It was peer-reviewed and published in Physical Review Letters Nov 9, 2016.

Not sure how you missed this one. It's all over the net.

BTW, Gnug is correct. If you want to discuss this further, probably best to take it elsewhere, such as HERE.

No thanks, I'm not really interested in further discussion. Actually these posts were directed towards Leroy, anyway.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The Middle East Media Research Institute TV (MEMRI TV) has a number of interesting videos featuring interviews, etc, by various Arab intellectuals, and - er - non-intellectuals.

Given that Islam is a religion of "submission (to Allah's Will)", the following is an interesting interview (by Al Buleihi, who has a number of interesting things to say):

Former Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: The Arab Is Incapable of Individual Thinking (25 Feb 2010)

In another interview he explains further:

Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: Progress for Arab and Islamic World Can Only Come from Western Civilization (22 July 2012)

There are more of his interviews =clip&current_site=tv]here.

Another is the Kuwaiti Nasser Dashti, who has issues with the religion's control over everything:
Kuwaiti Liberal Activist Nasser Dashti Clashes with Islamist Journalist Saeed Tawfiki over Freedom of Belief (9 Mar 2017)

He has a number of interesting interviews =clip&current_site=tv]here where he espouses separation of mosque and state.

Mohamed El Baradei also draws similarities between the modern Arab world and Europe during the Middle Ages:
Mohamed ElBaradei: Arab Society Lacks Freedom, Knowledge, and Equality; Tensions Are Exact Replica of Protestant-Catholic Wars of 17th Century Europe (3 Feb 2017)

These and others make for interesting viewing.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

It was peer-reviewed and published in Physical Review Letters Nov 9, 2016.

Not sure how you missed this one. It's all over the net.

Then why are you linking an article about it, rather than the original research? I've trawled the primary literature, and I can't find it. I can only find references to it, and the archive on the preprint server. Citation required.

 

[Dustnite]

I think he means this: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.201101

It's behind a paywall so I'd like to see the actual reference material as well.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

A former president once said it was the religion of peace.

Hehe, yep. While that was nice of him, it was still quite weird.

I don't even know how the moniker started. When was Islam ever a religion of peace?

And even more so, when was it ever a more peaceful religion over all the other ones? Sure, Christianity may have it beat, historically speaking, but what about all the other ones?
It's a bit like... calling Christianity the religion of Pro Choice or something.

The only "religion of peace" I can think of is Jainism, and they're still freakin' nuts.

 

[leroy]

if we define dark matter as, a source of gravity that cant be observed there are at least 2 independent lines of evidence that prove the existence of dark matter

1 there is not enough regular matter for keep the galaxies spinning

In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-g...cisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/

2 gravitation lenses, we do see a distortion of space that is not caused by observed matter.

Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift : Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

What you are doing is providing independent explanations of each piece of evidence for dark matter. ............O. Razor tells us that we shouldn't do that.


if a single hypothesis explains all the data, equally good, than a bunch of independent explanations we most accept the firstone



this doesn't mean that it is 100% sure that dark matter exists, it simply means that it is more reasonable to accept the existence of dark matter than to reject its existence.


Note, even if the alternative explanation for gravitation lensing where true, it would still indicate that there is something with gravity that we can not see (dark matter)