Archaeologica.org

True, Rich.

So electricity isn't like for like either.

Maybe we should go back to basics. A scientific theory is not just an idea that a scentist comes up with. For a scientific idea to make it to theory status, it has to meet four criteria. Let's run dark matter against that criteria:

1. Observable. Nope - it's completely intangible.
2. Testable, i.e. any assumptions should be provable by consistently reproducing a similar outcome. No, we can't reproduce it, because we cannot break it down into its constitutent parts, because we cannot get hold of it to do so.
3. It cannot be based on speculation. Ah!
4. It cannot be in contradiction with other proven facts (such as the Natural Laws or Physical Laws) Yes - but this is the only one of the four criteria that the hypothetical dark matter meets.

So dark matter doesn't meet theory status. It's just an idea - like dark suckers.

1) - we don't really know if it's observable or not - just that we can only observe the results of it from this distance.

2) - we don't know if we can't reproduce it because we don't yet know what it's made up of (if it exists).

3) - all things start as speculation - that is one of the natures of mankind - to speculate and then try to formulate a theory.

4) - we don't know if it is or not in contradiction with other proven facts - we can only speculate and theorize on it's structure.

Dark matter (for all we know) could be exactly that - something with a surface that is non-refelctive and dark! Does not say "invisible" matter. Dark energy on the other hand may actually be more measurable (once and if they get a better handle on it) than dark matter.

In either case, science is merely the tool we use in our "age" to learn about things and define their structures, affects, etc.
But as you can see with the dark-sucker theory - all things have their humorous side. We need humor - it's what keeps us from goin' totally bonkers. Besides - it's fun ain't it?

rich wrote: Dark matter (for all we know) could be exactly that - something with a surface that is non-reflective and dark! Does not say "invisible" matter.

I disagree, Rich. For something to be visible, we need it to reflect light. If it doesn’t do that, to us it’s invisible. The ‘in’ prefix here means ‘not’. It’s not visible.

rich wrote: Dark energy on the other hand may actually be more measurable (once and if they get a better handle on it) than dark matter.

OK, but that’s faith.... which is fine. But we shouldn’t mistake it for science, which I’m not criticising here — the point I'm trying to get over is about legitimacy and consistency of standards.

As I said, I’m not trying to prove the existence of the gods. I'm saying that the idea should not be laughed out of court in favour of ‘dark matter’ for no good reason. Otherwise, it's not science. It's religion.

So let’s run the existence of gods through the four-point mincer:

For a scientific theory to be proven, its conclusions have to be:

1. Observable. Yes, the gods are tangible to the shaman. He or she can touch them, see them, hear them, smell them and even taste them (should he so wish!). He calls them spirits, but they came to be known as gods.

2. Testable, i.e. any assumptions should be provable by consistently reproducing a similar outcome. The shaman’s communing with the gods on behalf of the needs of his tribe or community has been consistently proven to be a practical method to solve problems over thousands of years up to the present day. This has been well documented by anthropologists.
3. It cannot be based on speculation. The shaman doesn’t speculate about the gods. He has a practical experience of them every time he goes into trance and journeys to other dimensions, which are also tangible to him. If this wasn't true, he couldn’t heal or prophesy or do any good at all, as all the information he receives comes from the gods.

4. It cannot be in contradiction with other proven facts (such as the Natural Laws or Physical Laws) – Depends what you call a proven fact. That the sun orbited the earth used to be a proven fact. That man was only 4,000 years old used to be a proven fact.

Now you could say — and I’m sure somebody will — that we have to take all that on the word of the shaman. So how does that differ with dark matter? Well, it doesn’t. We have to take it on the word of the scientist that dark matter exists – and he’s not even saying he’s seen it!

Also anyone — with a little effort, but less than it takes to become a scientist — can learn how to take a shamanic journey to see if the shaman is right.

Hmmm - but if the gods or god did create all things, then they would also have created dark matter. If there are no gods then it is moot - but the dark matter remains.

As far as invisible - dark matter might be more "visible" if it were right up close to us - but it's not. When we see something that is black and non-reflective - we don't say it's invisible. We usually say something is invisible when we can see right thru it - sort of like glass. But on the other hand - maybe what they call dark matter is actually invisible matter - after all - water is almost invisible - and so is glass.

rich wrote:Hmmm - but if the gods or god did create all things, then they would also have created dark matter. If there are no gods then it is moot - but the dark matter remains.

Yes, they may well have created dark matter (if it exists) to keep everything up and working and ticking over as it is meant to, which, shamans say, is their job.

As far as invisible - dark matter might be more "visible" if it were right up close to us - but it's not. When we see something that is black and non-reflective - we don't say it's invisible. We usually say something is invisible when we can see right thru it - sort of like glass. But on the other hand - maybe what they call dark matter is actually invisible matter - after all - water is almost invisible - and so is glass.

Neither glass or water are invisible because they reflect light. We need stuff to bounce light. If it doesn't, we can't see it. This dark matter, according to scientists, is all pervading - it's not just "something about there". It is close. It's right next to us - but we can't see it ... apparently.

So yes, we can say that it might be there but we just can't perceive it with our five senses. But we could say the same about the gods - and that's my point.


BTW Happy Summer Solstice everyone!

Oh and lets not forget - you can see electricity - when it sparks across a gap - and as ball lightning!

No Rich, that's an effect of electricity, not the electricity itself.
And non reflecting bodies can be seen by occultation Ish.

I don't think occultation will help us to see dark energy, as we cannot see anything, occulted or not, unless it emits photons. As I'm sure you know, these then travel through the lens of the eye where they are broken and fall on the retina at the back of the eye. Here, the light is turned into electrical signals that are transmitted by neurons to a tiny spot called the centre of vision which is in the back part of the brain. This electrical signal is seen as an image in this centre in the brain after a series of processes. The act of seeing actually takes place in this tiny spot at the back part of the brain which is pitch-dark and completely insulated from light.

But the scientists tell us that why we can't see dark energy is because it does not emit photons. So occultation won't help us to see it.

On to electricity. ..

Electricity doesn't exist in a raw state. According to Wiki, it is a general term that encompasses a variety of phenomena resulting from the presence and flow of electric charge. These include many easily recognizable phenomena such as lightning and static electricity, but in addition, less familiar concepts such as the electromagnetic field and electromagnetic induction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity

In general usage, the word 'electricity' is adequate to refer to a number of physical effects. However, in scientific usage, the term is vague, and these related, but distinct, concepts are better identified by more precise terms:

Electric charge – a property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interactions. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields.

Electric current – a movement or flow of electrically charged particles, typically measured in amperes.

Electric field – an influence produced by an electric charge on other charges in its vicinity.

Electric potential – the capacity of an electric field to do work, typically measured in volts.

Electromagnetism – a fundamental interaction between the electric field and the presence and motion of electric charge.

So 'electricity' cannot cause anything in and of itself. It's just how we describe certain specific and related activities of nature that produce power.

So 'electricity' cannot cause anything in and of itself.

??

Before you elevate dark matter to the realm of mystical bunk, I feel a little perspective is required.

The universe is relatively sparse on light. If I'm not mistaken the most amount of light that exists is in the infra-red spectrum which humans can not see without instrumentation. Now consider - if I filled a room with hydrogen gas, you would not be able to see it but neither would the room be empty. Its filled with an invisible gas consisting of hydrogen atoms and atoms are matter. So the space is filled with invisible matter. But I have instruments that can detect that particular kind of matter.

Now what if I filled the room with neutrinos? It is again filled with invisible matter but now I need a more sophisticated kind of instrument to detect it. How about filling the room with a form of matter called 'wimps'? We haven't built detectors that can easily find them. This is the nature of dark matter - it has mass, but it is in a form we don't fully understand because we haven't been able to capture it for study and measure.

Space is empty; by definition the absence of matter. But when we take infrared pictures of the sky, we see heat in places where there are no stars:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CIBR/FIR.jpg

The heat can not exist in empty space so we know matter holds the heat energy. This is one method that can be used to detect matter that would be invisible in the optical energy ranges. the mere fact that the temperature of space is above absolute zero tells us something is holding heat energy. The matter we see in the cosmic infrared pictures is still not enough to account for the maths and other observations.

Without getting in the gory details of gravitational lensing or spinning galaxy clusters, we know by simple Einsteinian physics that something is out there contributing gravity. We observe its effects, we just haven't figured out how to measure it or collect some in a test tube.

The alternative, of course, is big bang is wrong and with so much other supporting evidence such as the cosmic background microwave radiation images we now have - few are suggesting alternative theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP_2008.png

Precisely, we note and measure the effects, as with Earth's gravity for example.

Forum Monk wrote:Before you elevate dark matter to the realm of mystical bunk, I feel a little perspective is required.

Thanks FM, this is interesting.

I'm not trying to relegate dark matter to mystical bunk, though. I wouldn't even put mystical bunk in mystical bunk. (Just noticed you said, elevate - sorry! )

Forum Monk wrote:
The universe is relatively sparse on light. If I'm not mistaken the most amount of light that exists is in the infra-red spectrum which humans can not see without instrumentation.

Now consider - if I filled a room with hydrogen gas, you would not be able to see it but neither would the room be empty. Its filled with an invisible gas consisting of hydrogen atoms and atoms are matter. So the space is filled with invisible matter. But I have instruments that can detect that particular kind of matter.

Now what if I filled the room with neutrinos? It is again filled with invisible matter but now I need a more sophisticated kind of instrument to detect it. How about filling the room with a form of matter called 'wimps'? We haven't built detectors that can easily find them.

Er... I think we have. I seem to be able to detect them quite easily.

Forum Monk wrote: This is the nature of dark matter - it has mass, but it is in a form we don't fully understand because we haven't been able to capture it for study and measure.

How do we know it has mass if we haven't been able to capture it and study and measure it?

Forum Monk wrote: Space is empty; by definition the absence of matter. But when we take infrared pictures of the sky, we see heat in places where there are no stars:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CIBR/FIR.jpg

The heat can not exist in empty space so we know matter holds the heat energy. This is one method that can be used to detect matter that would be invisible in the optical energy ranges. the mere fact that the temperature of space is above absolute zero tells us something is holding heat energy. The matter we see in the cosmic infrared pictures is still not enough to account for the maths and other observations.

Quite. What is the percentage that can be perceived by infra-red?

Incidentally, the ancient shamans/scientists did not believe in empty space. And as you know, nature abhors a vacuum.

Forum Monk wrote: Without getting in the gory details of gravitational lensing or spinning galaxy clusters,

Phew! Thanks.

Forum Monk wrote: we know by simple Einsteinian physics that something is out there contributing gravity. We observe its effects, we just haven't figured out how to measure it or collect some in a test tube.

Do you know that Arch uses that self same argument about God? He says: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." You are using the same argument here....with the 'it'll turn up eventually' spin on it.

The alternative, of course, is big bang is wrong and with so much other supporting evidence such as the cosmic background microwave radiation images we now have - few are suggesting alternative theories.

Not at all. It doesn't mean ditching the big bang theory necessarily. Something is definitely causing the universe not to spin out of control - the only question is what?

Different people believe different things at different times. My only point was to show that saying 'it's dark energy' is no different to saying 'its the gods' Both are forces of power and yet neither can be proved, experienced tangibly in this dimension or measured.

Ishtar wrote:Different people believe different things at different times. My only point was to show that saying 'it's dark energy' is no different to saying 'its the gods' Both are forces of power and yet neither can be proved, experienced tangibly in this dimension or measured.

Ok. I think I understand now, where you may be going. Suggesting perhaps that much of the unseen source of power was perceived in ancient times as god and today we have other names for it. I don't disagree.

But just to put a different spin on the idea, I think most people, Arch, me, and the ancients as well, do not see God as a force or as a manifestation of power, but rather personified. A person who possesses power.

The fact that two or more people or groups use the same or similar arguments doesn't necessarily invalidate any or all of the arguments Ish.
We accept the existance of gravity by measuring the effects that it has, we have no direct evidence of its physical existance.
The Bible uses the same statement about people of faith, by their fruits shall you know them.
Darwin had the same problem, he could only observe results, not the mechanism.
Reality isn't always as it seems.
I failed completely in attempting to convince my father-in-law that a wave moves through water in the oceans and that it does not move water, observations to the contrary.

Forum Monk wrote: A person who possesses power.

And if you go back a bit to polytheistic times, you get the same thing but multplied - People, or divine beings, who possess power.

The word magi or magician is derived from the Sanskrit word 'mage' which means to possess power.

Digit wrote:The fact that two or more people or groups use the same or similar arguments doesn't necessarily invalidate any or all of the arguments Ish.
We accept the existance of gravity by measuring the effects that it has, we have no direct evidence of its physical existance.
The Bible uses the same statement about people of faith, by their fruits shall you know them.
Darwin had the same problem, he could only observe results, not the mechanism.
Reality isn't always as it seems.
I failed completely in attempting to convince my father-in-law that a wave moves through water in the oceans and that it does not move water, observations to the contrary.

Faith is fine, Digit. My point was the phrase 'scientific theory' gets thrown around a lot when all it is, often, is just an act of faith, albeit an educated act of faith, by a scientist.