You can't just say that something was missing from the math. 96% of the universe had to be made up in order for the math to work out. That is not just a simple something.
Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2016, 02:17:41 PMQuote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 02:09:44 PMQuote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2016, 02:00:21 PMQuote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 01:48:08 PMQuote from: Round and Proud on March 19, 2016, 11:01:36 AMQuoteThere is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist. There is mathematical evidence. Much more so than that of aether for which there is non, nada, nothing.I think you mean that it is used to fill in holes in mathematics. In other words, when math does not work, blame it on dark matter. Of course there's observational evidence for dark matter, you ridiculous troll! Why do you think it was hypothesised in the first place? Because OBSERVATIONS did not match what was expected to be seen. There are alternative hypotheses, and the observations are also evidence for them, but to say there's no observational evidence is a flat out lie. There is no conclusive evidence, for which I'm using the definition of evidence which cannot be attributable to something else. Neither is there direct observational evidence which would be the detection of the dark matter itself.Something for which there is only mathematical evidence would be something like the Higgs Field, which was hypothesised, but until its related boson was found, there was no observational evidence. Now there is direct observational evidence of the Higgs Boson, there is therefore now observational evidence (although not direct) of the Higgs Field.But then I suppose you don't think footprints in sand are evidence that somebody walked along there. I mean, they could have been formed by a natural erosive process, or a beam fired down from the sky, couldn't they?There is no observed evidence, other than what is observed does not match what is calculated, so it must be dark matter. Do some research for a change, before making yourself seem like an idiot. So you concede that you think footprints are not evidence that someone walked along there. By that token, if you were Robinson Crusoe and lived alone on an island, and then one day you saw footprints you didn't leave, then to hypothesise the existence of another person on the island would be ridiculous and stupid. Good. Carry on making yourself look like an idiot. Because the footprint analogy is a really, really good analogy to the dark matter evidence. We see its effects on other matter.Dark matter is not something we know exists, like footprints. It is used to fill in for a lack of knowledge, as in thinking, "If I don't see footprints, then I can infer that nobody has ever been here." At least get yourself straight when you make dumb statements.
Quote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 02:09:44 PMQuote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2016, 02:00:21 PMQuote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 01:48:08 PMQuote from: Round and Proud on March 19, 2016, 11:01:36 AMQuoteThere is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist. There is mathematical evidence. Much more so than that of aether for which there is non, nada, nothing.I think you mean that it is used to fill in holes in mathematics. In other words, when math does not work, blame it on dark matter. Of course there's observational evidence for dark matter, you ridiculous troll! Why do you think it was hypothesised in the first place? Because OBSERVATIONS did not match what was expected to be seen. There are alternative hypotheses, and the observations are also evidence for them, but to say there's no observational evidence is a flat out lie. There is no conclusive evidence, for which I'm using the definition of evidence which cannot be attributable to something else. Neither is there direct observational evidence which would be the detection of the dark matter itself.Something for which there is only mathematical evidence would be something like the Higgs Field, which was hypothesised, but until its related boson was found, there was no observational evidence. Now there is direct observational evidence of the Higgs Boson, there is therefore now observational evidence (although not direct) of the Higgs Field.But then I suppose you don't think footprints in sand are evidence that somebody walked along there. I mean, they could have been formed by a natural erosive process, or a beam fired down from the sky, couldn't they?There is no observed evidence, other than what is observed does not match what is calculated, so it must be dark matter. Do some research for a change, before making yourself seem like an idiot. So you concede that you think footprints are not evidence that someone walked along there. By that token, if you were Robinson Crusoe and lived alone on an island, and then one day you saw footprints you didn't leave, then to hypothesise the existence of another person on the island would be ridiculous and stupid. Good. Carry on making yourself look like an idiot. Because the footprint analogy is a really, really good analogy to the dark matter evidence. We see its effects on other matter.
Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2016, 02:00:21 PMQuote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 01:48:08 PMQuote from: Round and Proud on March 19, 2016, 11:01:36 AMQuoteThere is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist. There is mathematical evidence. Much more so than that of aether for which there is non, nada, nothing.I think you mean that it is used to fill in holes in mathematics. In other words, when math does not work, blame it on dark matter. Of course there's observational evidence for dark matter, you ridiculous troll! Why do you think it was hypothesised in the first place? Because OBSERVATIONS did not match what was expected to be seen. There are alternative hypotheses, and the observations are also evidence for them, but to say there's no observational evidence is a flat out lie. There is no conclusive evidence, for which I'm using the definition of evidence which cannot be attributable to something else. Neither is there direct observational evidence which would be the detection of the dark matter itself.Something for which there is only mathematical evidence would be something like the Higgs Field, which was hypothesised, but until its related boson was found, there was no observational evidence. Now there is direct observational evidence of the Higgs Boson, there is therefore now observational evidence (although not direct) of the Higgs Field.But then I suppose you don't think footprints in sand are evidence that somebody walked along there. I mean, they could have been formed by a natural erosive process, or a beam fired down from the sky, couldn't they?There is no observed evidence, other than what is observed does not match what is calculated, so it must be dark matter. Do some research for a change, before making yourself seem like an idiot.
Quote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 01:48:08 PMQuote from: Round and Proud on March 19, 2016, 11:01:36 AMQuoteThere is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist. There is mathematical evidence. Much more so than that of aether for which there is non, nada, nothing.I think you mean that it is used to fill in holes in mathematics. In other words, when math does not work, blame it on dark matter. Of course there's observational evidence for dark matter, you ridiculous troll! Why do you think it was hypothesised in the first place? Because OBSERVATIONS did not match what was expected to be seen. There are alternative hypotheses, and the observations are also evidence for them, but to say there's no observational evidence is a flat out lie. There is no conclusive evidence, for which I'm using the definition of evidence which cannot be attributable to something else. Neither is there direct observational evidence which would be the detection of the dark matter itself.Something for which there is only mathematical evidence would be something like the Higgs Field, which was hypothesised, but until its related boson was found, there was no observational evidence. Now there is direct observational evidence of the Higgs Boson, there is therefore now observational evidence (although not direct) of the Higgs Field.But then I suppose you don't think footprints in sand are evidence that somebody walked along there. I mean, they could have been formed by a natural erosive process, or a beam fired down from the sky, couldn't they?
Quote from: Round and Proud on March 19, 2016, 11:01:36 AMQuoteThere is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist. There is mathematical evidence. Much more so than that of aether for which there is non, nada, nothing.I think you mean that it is used to fill in holes in mathematics. In other words, when math does not work, blame it on dark matter.
QuoteThere is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist. There is mathematical evidence. Much more so than that of aether for which there is non, nada, nothing.
There is no observational evidence for dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected, has not been detected, and will not ever be detected because it probably does not exist.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.
Quote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2016, 03:46:05 PMQuote from: jroa on March 19, 2016, 02:26:13 PMJust look at that picture to get an idea of the type of person you are arguing with. I don't believe I have seen one constructive sentence from jroa! Still, what can you expect that head looks pretty empty.By the way, I am a little curious as to what this has to the "Ice Wall and Antarctica", especially as this is in Q&A.I guess if there is no "Ice Wall" that blocks entry you and jroa have to argue over something.
I am not the one who brought up dark matter. I was simply giving flat Earth answers. Also, Neil, just a reminder that posting personal information, including pictures, without the persons consent, is against the rules.
Quote from: jroa on March 20, 2016, 05:35:37 AMI am not the one who brought up dark matter. I was simply giving flat Earth answers. Also, Neil, just a reminder that posting personal information, including pictures, without the persons consent, is against the rules. Er, have I posted a picture of you on here without your consent? No. How do I even possess a picture of you? YOU POSTED IT ON THIS FORUM. So if I was to re-post it (which I haven't) then you can't claim it is without your consent.
Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 20, 2016, 12:53:27 PMQuote from: jroa on March 20, 2016, 05:35:37 AMI am not the one who brought up dark matter. I was simply giving flat Earth answers. Also, Neil, just a reminder that posting personal information, including pictures, without the persons consent, is against the rules. Er, have I posted a picture of you on here without your consent? No. How do I even possess a picture of you? YOU POSTED IT ON THIS FORUM. So if I was to re-post it (which I haven't) then you can't claim it is without your consent.I did not post that picture. Vauxhall did. He got it from social media. I never gave him permission to post it. And, in fact, he got banned for a week for doing so. The fact that you have it and the fact that you have reposted it before do not mean that I gave anyone consent to post it here.
Quote from: jroa on March 20, 2016, 02:32:35 PMQuote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 20, 2016, 12:53:27 PMQuote from: jroa on March 20, 2016, 05:35:37 AMI am not the one who brought up dark matter. I was simply giving flat Earth answers. Also, Neil, just a reminder that posting personal information, including pictures, without the persons consent, is against the rules. Er, have I posted a picture of you on here without your consent? No. How do I even possess a picture of you? YOU POSTED IT ON THIS FORUM. So if I was to re-post it (which I haven't) then you can't claim it is without your consent.I did not post that picture. Vauxhall did. He got it from social media. I never gave him permission to post it. And, in fact, he got banned for a week for doing so. The fact that you have it and the fact that you have reposted it before do not mean that I gave anyone consent to post it here. Funny how you left it sitting on the forum for so long when you could have deleted it right away.