He Denies Dark Matter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2017, 08:08 PM
He Denies Dark Matter
Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom does not subscribe to the idea that dark matter explains galactic rotations. Here is an intriguing interview.

http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-phys...ark-matter

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
19-07-2017, 08:22 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
MOND has been around for decades. It answers some problems well. Others not so much.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
19-07-2017, 10:30 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
The thing about physics is that we really do learn as we go along. With each newly learned bit of theory, we get closer to the actual. That learning curve is asymptotic to the actual. How close can you get, on the asymptote? Usually good enough to make things work. Dark matter is posited as a solution for effects that have no other explanation. We'll figure it out. Astrophysics is one area where everybody still gets to have interim theories about how the universe works. I know that a lot of what I learned 35 years ago in my Solar System Astrophysics class is now obsolete. That's just how science is. Is he right? I'll wait for some proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
20-07-2017, 09:36 AM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(19-07-2017 10:30 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Dark matter is posited as a solution for effects that have no other explanation...


Be careful saying this... the religionists could equally well say that dark matter = God. And that God is evidence for these inexplicable effects. Confused

I'd prefer to say that the notion of dark matter is a working hypothesis that's supported thus far with scientific evidence of its nature in the real world.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
20-07-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(20-07-2017 09:36 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(19-07-2017 10:30 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Dark matter is posited as a solution for effects that have no other explanation...


Be careful saying this... the religionists could equally well say that dark matter = God. And that God is evidence for these inexplicable effects. Confused

I'd prefer to say that the notion of dark matter is a working hypothesis that's supported thus far with scientific evidence of its nature in the real world.

Yes That thought did occur to me as I was writing this, but I figure the religious fish are gonna believe whatever, anyway. Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
20-07-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(19-07-2017 10:30 PM)Fireball Wrote:  The thing about physics is that we really do learn as we go along. With each newly learned bit of theory, we get closer to the actual.

Do we?

Maybe this should go in "conspiracy theories", but: I have speculated about this. If observation is an actual physical parameter of the universe -- as some interpretations of quantum mechanics have held it to be -- what if the net real effect of observation is to move the horizon further away every time we advance towards it?

We formulate an atomic theory, and go looking for atoms. We eventually observe them, and the universe shrugs, and says "OK, but now there are electrons, protons, and neutrons".

So we go looking further and we find these subatomic particles, and the universe says "OK, but now there are quarks".

Then we finally observe quarks, and the universe says "very good, but what about these new Higgs bosons?"

And so it goes, as we probe deeper and deeper, eventually finding what we are looking for,
but also unwittingly creating the next level down as we do so.

Heh.

I know at least one physicist who claims he has nightmares about such things. Tongue

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
20-07-2017, 04:15 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(20-07-2017 01:42 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(19-07-2017 10:30 PM)Fireball Wrote:  The thing about physics is that we really do learn as we go along. With each newly learned bit of theory, we get closer to the actual.

Do we?

Maybe this should go in "conspiracy theories", but: I have speculated about this. If observation is an actual physical parameter of the universe -- as some interpretations of quantum mechanics have held it to be -- what if the net real effect of observation is to move the horizon further away every time we advance towards it?

We formulate an atomic theory, and go looking for atoms. We eventually observe them, and the universe shrugs, and says "OK, but now there are electrons, protons, and neutrons".

So we go looking further and we find these subatomic particles, and the universe says "OK, but now there are quarks".

Then we finally observe quarks, and the universe says "very good, but what about these new Higgs bosons?"

And so it goes, as we probe deeper and deeper, eventually finding what we are looking for,
but also unwittingly creating the next level down as we do so.

Heh.

I know at least one physicist who claims he has nightmares about such things. Tongue

Maybe it is turtles all the way down, who knows? Big Grin It is what it is, though, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I realized early on that I wasn't Einstein or Weinberg, so people smarter than I can sweat that stuff. After graduating uni, I went into plasma isotope separation, then antennas and low observables and RF shielding for about 11 years, treading the middle ground between RF and mechanical structures. I ended up the last 14 years of my career as a mechanical guy working on communications equipment. I also designed some ground support equipment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2017, 04:56 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(19-07-2017 08:08 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom does not subscribe to the idea that dark matter explains galactic rotations. Here is an intriguing interview.

http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-phys...ark-matter
Idris Alba gets 15 minutes for rebuttal. Smartass
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2017, 06:32 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(20-07-2017 04:15 PM)Fireball Wrote:  After graduating uni, I went into plasma isotope separation, then antennas and low observables and RF shielding for about 11 years, treading the middle ground between RF and mechanical structures. I ended up the last 14 years of my career as a mechanical guy working on communications equipment. I also designed some ground support equipment.

We could have used your help at Isfjord radio station to solve our low look angle scintillation problem that was exacerbated by reflections off the even changing ocean.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2017, 07:38 PM
RE: He Denies Dark Matter
(20-07-2017 06:32 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(20-07-2017 04:15 PM)Fireball Wrote:  After graduating uni, I went into plasma isotope separation, then antennas and low observables and RF shielding for about 11 years, treading the middle ground between RF and mechanical structures. I ended up the last 14 years of my career as a mechanical guy working on communications equipment. I also designed some ground support equipment.

We could have used your help at Isfjord radio station to solve our low look angle scintillation problem that was exacerbated by reflections off the even changing ocean.

Getting a little off topic, but was this for communications out over the water, or radar? I see you said radio, but just want to be sure. How high was the transmitter, was it on a tower? Of course, that only helps so far out. And ground bounce is a pain in the neck off any surface.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: