The Sun's power source.

  • 130 Replies
  • 16502 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2011, 05:17:41 PM »
The sun's power source is mysterious.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2011, 05:58:16 PM »
The sun's power source is mysterious.

Thats not entirely the case.  When we think about what could power the sun, our list of items gets quite small.  There is of course, the unknown, but there is at least one energy source that could work.  Fusion.  When we look at what fusion is, and what it requires, the sun and stars seem to possess the necessary ingredients for this type of power.  When examining the composition of the stars, we find that they are composed primarily of Hydrogen, which is what we use in our own fusion H-bombs.  Fusion is an incredibly efficient source of power, and knowing the mass of the sun using newton's version of kelpers third law we know that the sun has enough hydrogen to sustain its energy output for the life of the sun or in other words billions of years.  Every other star that we look at also has Hydrogen as one of its major components.



*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2011, 06:38:50 PM »
The sun's power source is mysterious.

Thats not entirely the case.  When we think about what could power the sun, our list of items gets quite small.  There is of course, the unknown, but there is at least one energy source that could work.  Fusion.  When we look at what fusion is, and what it requires, the sun and stars seem to possess the necessary ingredients for this type of power.  When examining the composition of the stars, we find that they are composed primarily of Hydrogen, which is what we use in our own fusion H-bombs.  Fusion is an incredibly efficient source of power, and knowing the mass of the sun using newton's version of kelpers third law we know that the sun has enough hydrogen to sustain its energy output for the life of the sun or in other words billions of years.  Every other star that we look at also has Hydrogen as one of its major components.




It could just be a particularly hot chemical reaction. Could even be fission. I mean, we're only talking about 32 miles.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2011, 06:43:08 PM »
The sun's power source is mysterious.

Thats not entirely the case.  When we think about what could power the sun, our list of items gets quite small.  There is of course, the unknown, but there is at least one energy source that could work.  Fusion.  When we look at what fusion is, and what it requires, the sun and stars seem to possess the necessary ingredients for this type of power.  When examining the composition of the stars, we find that they are composed primarily of Hydrogen, which is what we use in our own fusion H-bombs.  Fusion is an incredibly efficient source of power, and knowing the mass of the sun using newton's version of kelpers third law we know that the sun has enough hydrogen to sustain its energy output for the life of the sun or in other words billions of years.  Every other star that we look at also has Hydrogen as one of its major components.


It could just be a particularly hot chemical reaction. Could even be fission. I mean, we're only talking about 32 miles.

Chemical reactions would not even last thousands of years much less billions, and fission does not work as well as fusion in terms of longevity, nor does it fit the materials inside of stars as well (hydrogen).

Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2011, 09:11:27 PM »


It could just be a particularly hot chemical reaction. Could even be fission. I mean, we're only talking about 32 miles.

This was discussed earlier in the thread. The presence of neutrinos from the sun isn't consistent with a chemical reaction. Fission would also not be consistent with the neutrino data (although one would at least then expect a few neutrinos). Moreover, fission is only efficient if one has elements which are more massive than iron. We know the sun's composition from 19th century style stellar spectroscopy. Of course, if the sun were only 32 miles radius even if one had fusion it would be very difficult to get as much neutrino production as one has.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2011, 01:52:25 AM »
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2011, 04:37:25 AM »
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
It isn't even physically possible to "see" an atom in the sense that we see the colours of the rainbow.

Science fail.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2011, 05:19:07 AM »
Yes, it would seem science does fail in this regard. Positing all manner of imaginary particle to explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies in its own theories!
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16672
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2011, 06:02:20 AM »
Yes, it would seem science does fail in this regard. Positing all manner of imaginary particle to explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies in its own theories!
Now now, making up bullshit has been a long time honoured tradition in science dating back further than even Newton!
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41408
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2011, 06:37:42 AM »
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2011, 08:27:14 AM »
Yes, it would seem science does fail in this regard. Positing all manner of imaginary particle to explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies in its own theories!

You would have a marginally valid point but for the fact that we can actually detect them. In the case of the neutrino it was predicted based on conservation of energy and conservation of momentum 9and some other more subtle conservation laws) that there had to be another particle arising from certain classes of collisions. So physicists set up experiments to see if they could find particles that behaved in the predicted fashion. And they did. And then they did yet more experiments to check those and find out more about them. A lot of these predictions are really impressive. Already mentioned in this thread was the prediction that nearby supernovas should generate neutrino spikes. These aren't just imaginary particles; they lead to consequences which we can predict and verify.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 AM »
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

No, no, no, and no. None of that has been seen. James is correct in that if it hasn't been seen or detected there is no reason to assume that they exist.

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

This is the difference between a Zetetic and a Scientician. The Zetetic starts from inquiry, keeping all possibilities open, accepting only what has been demonstrated empirically. The Scientician starts from fantasy, following media hype like a dog to the whistle, building one unproven hypothesis atop the next in rapid and mumbling succession.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 09:27:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2011, 08:33:26 AM »
Interesting Tom, I wasn't aware that any one person had seen enough of the Earth to prove it's a disc.

Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2011, 08:50:31 AM »
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct? Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2011, 09:09:54 AM »
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct?

The hypothetical imaginings of scienticians rarely turn out to be correct. When there is any progress is it usually done by starting from inquiry, not hypothesis.

I believe it was the Wright Brothers who said -- "Science Theory held us up for years. When we threw out the science and started from experiment to experience, then we invented the airplane."

The Wright Brithers were Zetetics. They started from inquiry, not hypothesis. They did not "build on the shoulders of giants" like a disreputable scientician. They did their own experiments and let reality do the talking.

Quote
Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

My computer can work just as well with waves as it can with electrons. The operation of my computer does not tell us whether electrons exist or not.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 09:56:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2011, 09:40:44 AM »


Quote
Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

My computer can work just as well with waves as it can with electrons. The operation of my computer does not tell us whether electrons exist or not.

What does this mean? Electrons are wave-particles. And yes, that duality is used in your computer. If it weren't for that duality, small transistors wouldn't function for example.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #76 on: May 23, 2011, 09:49:28 AM »
What does this mean? Electrons are wave-particles. And yes, that duality is used in your computer. If it weren't for that duality, small transistors wouldn't function for example.

I'm talking about the idea that matter only exists as waves as presented in this link: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The idea presented in the link is that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we believe are sub-atomic particles are actually just waves of varying properties. The function and operation of a wave-only electron is indistinguishable from a conventional electron. The operation of a computer chip does not demonstrate either hypothesis. A computer chip can work just as well with a wave electron as it can with a conventional electron.

Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians believe in the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 10:03:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41408
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2011, 10:55:05 AM »
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #78 on: May 23, 2011, 12:05:06 PM »
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Technically, yes
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Yes (For the first part)
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Yes (Again, only the first part)
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Yes (Again, only the first part)

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #79 on: May 23, 2011, 12:37:40 PM »
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #80 on: May 23, 2011, 12:54:06 PM »
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Mainstream science has proven that particular matter exists.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #81 on: May 23, 2011, 02:00:48 PM »
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Mainstream science has proven that particular matter exists.

Really? Who proved that particle matter exists?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41408
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #82 on: May 23, 2011, 02:38:13 PM »
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Perhaps that depends on your definition of "particle" and "matter".  Again, Einstein proposed that matter and energy are the same thing.  Sounds like this guy is saying pretty much the same thing, just in a different way.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #83 on: May 25, 2011, 05:36:16 AM »
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct? Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

This is the core weakness of the hypothetical/theoretic approach to science.  It is satisfied with an explanation which has predictive power, it is not satisfied with the true explanation of what actually happens.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41408
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #84 on: May 25, 2011, 06:17:38 AM »
It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

Will you?  Do you have any statistical data to support this notion?

This is the core weakness of the hypothetical/theoretic approach to science.  It is satisfied with an explanation which has predictive power, it is not satisfied with the true explanation of what actually happens.

Not so.  A predictive model is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #85 on: May 25, 2011, 06:32:20 AM »
It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

Will you?  Do you have any statistical data to support this notion?

Does he really need to produce statistical data?  Persephone comes back in the spring and stays for the summer; do you challenge the assertion that crops grow in the spring and summer?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41408
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #86 on: May 25, 2011, 06:55:08 AM »
It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals. I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

Will you?  Do you have any statistical data to support this notion?

Does he really need to produce statistical data?  Persephone comes back in the spring and stays for the summer; do you challenge the assertion that crops grow in the spring and summer?  ???

No.  Are you denying the assertion that droughts, blights or any number of phenomena can prevent crops from growing correctly during the spring and summer?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2011, 09:12:41 AM »
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct? Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

This is the core weakness of the hypothetical/theoretic approach to science.  It is satisfied with an explanation which has predictive power, it is not satisfied with the true explanation of what actually happens.

On the contrary, this is precisely why science tries to take hypotheses that make new predictions for events not yet observed. Thus to use an example earlier in this thread, the prediction that nearby supernova would generate detectable neutrino surges is an event that had not yet been observed when the hypothesis was constructed, and then turned out to work. If the Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make predictions about unobserved classes of events and those events occur that makes it a hypothesis worth considering. But all Demeter-Persephone can do is predict an class of events that are already known to occur.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The Sun's power source.
« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2011, 10:58:43 AM »
The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The Sun's power source
« Reply #89 on: May 25, 2011, 01:04:03 PM »
The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.

First, I'm not sure why this is going on in the thread I made to discuss the suns powersource,  exceptthat you guys already admitted to having no clue,  so it was bound to get derailed.  Second,  James you act like science accepts the first answer that works with thier hypothesis,  which is completely untrue.  Even In my lower division classes here at UCSC my professors readily accept when the data points to multiple hypothesis that we do not know what is hAppening. Take for instance dark matter.  There are a few possibilites, but no certainties bit could be MACHOS or nutrinos,  or a few other things.  Science has to eliminate those options before it is even willing to call it a theory.