Originally Posted by wollery
Dark matter is affected by gravity, but not by the other fundamental forces.
originally posted by Beachooser
How utterly BIZARRE. It's almost like magic powder!
Since neutrinos are in a very similar category, it is a very relevant question. I did not say you had not heard of them but that they were a similar particle to the dark matter hypoparticles. Same;same neutrino:dark matter
"I don't suppose you know about the neutrino?"
presented here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2883009&postcount=58
in response to your statement
And since when did science invoke invisible magic particles, forces and magic events to explain every deficiency in a theory?
and I also mentioned the pion although i did not mention quarks or changing neutrinos and other particles.
"More crap. You have never been to an academic conference, have you?"
Sorry, I didn't find that one, I do know that I said it. I can't recall the context and haven't found it yet.
So It was not a well phrased sentence, but I would suppose you were talking about the suppression of your pet theories.
I grew up with academics and around academics, all they do is talk shop, they never stop, they visit friends on vacation, they talk shop, they go on trips, they talk shop, they write letters, they talk shop.
They don't suppress you precious theories, they may not be interested in them.
ETA I just found it, you were calling "Big Bang Astronomers are acting like priests defending a religion" which isn't true, when you present the magnetic field scaled up from Perrat's toy model and show that there is a field or current of that strength then i would not think that about you.
My point still stands, there is no conspiracy to keep your pet theories out, all academics do is talk about their passion all the freaking time, my father has reviewed many an article, he does not care if he likes your idea, he wants to see the data and the rationale. (So please don't ask him for grant money if you are going to talk about cave bear altars and neanderthals burying people with marijuana.)
"have you read the history of physics much?"
here is the whole quote
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2883009&postcount=58
"that makes two. Oh, I see , you are just using hyperbole. have you read the history of physics much?
read up on Gell-Mann would you, some theoretical particles are eliminated, some turn out to be true, quarks are a theoretical explanation.
"
So I am countering more of your magic particle rant, in this case WIMPS, they could exist and there are studies being done regards them, the fact that they are hard to detect does not mean they don't exist.
"Ah, that is particle physics, you don't really know what you are talking about."
You may or may not but I am very certain your contention was that the search for dark matter was unprecedented in physics, and I was saying that you were wrong. Failed theories that couldn't make predictions stick abound.
Dark matter may end up that way, not yet.
"Shows that you have never been to an astronomy or cosmology department, have you?"
And each one of those was in response to a specific point that you made, I remember our conversation about the pi meson very clearly BAC, I can show you your rudeness in so many threads.
And the real issue is that you won't engage in discussion or defend your statements
Then the conversation between us continued with the normal bantering one expects (no real unpleasantness) until post #111 when you wrote "You talk like some sort of religouys fanatic, and one with an axe to grind." And then you added "Second be sure to ignore Cuddles, prove you are a troll." That's pretty hostile David. And I had not been hostile to you.
'like' is a simile and you were ignoring many pointed statements , not all of them rude.
I admit that was unwarranted sarcasm but considering I had started to ask you to show where the verification of Perrat’s model was on page two, I made a bad assumption. i am not sure if you are a troll.
You sure won't answer questions and find any reason to avoid it.
I was rude, I apologize.
You continued in post #114 (30 August 2007) with this: "If you can't talk to Cuddles then you just shopw even more that you are a poseur and a fanatic." That's quite hostile David. Can you show us that I'd posted anything to you at that point in time even remotely as unfriendly on any thread?
can you show where you were answering questions and not engaging in excessive hyperbole?
I am sorry BAC, my behavior was not at it's best.
Then in post #258 the discourse devolves further when you write " More clinging to what looks like a faith based appraoch and fanaticism on your part." and then call me a "Fanatic." just because I point out an article only talks about "gas" and never mentions "plasma". You close by saying "Your meglomania and lack of interrest in any debate is rather dull." That's false and hostile, David and unprovoked.
Then why won't you engage in debate? "looks like" is not saying "you are"
I was rude, I am sorry.
What size magnetic field would be needed to make Perrat's model of galaxy rotation work, has it been verified or demonstrated?
I asked that starting on page two.
I am sorry I was rude to you.
And in the very next post #259, you make your first attempt at linking me to creationism. Note that I've never mentioned it.
And you continued that tactic with statements like this in #339: "Thump your bible, you are a faith based dervish."
i was rude but when you refuse to present your case in the face of a direct question, that is faith based, you are basing it upon belief and not evidence.
I was rude, I am sorry.
Will you answer any of the four questions?
Mostly 2-4?
Or is there no evidence?
So pardon me, if I suggest that in your latest post you are trying the same tactics that got you ignored originally.
So pardon me, you say that you have a theory, but you do not want to explain it, you say that there is a model but you won't demonstrate it.
I can repeat the questions BAC, but why won't you tell me what evidence supports Perrat’s model scaled up to a galaxy? Why won't you explain hop a Lerner plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse? How do you want to explain the rotational velocity of star clusters?
I believe that plasma did play a huge role in the formative era of the universe in the BBE, it would make a lot of sense to me.
But i don't see where you have provided the evidence that Perrat's model is an accurate representation of a galaxy. What are the forces and fields where can they be seen?
I challenge you to post a political or character slur I directed at you. Would you like more of the ones you've tossed my way? Should I list the many comments you directed at me where Rove was mentioned?
Now you don't really want me to show all your hyperbole and evasions. If you offended by my comparison of you to Karl Rove then I shall cease.
cease fire
However i do not that you engage in a lot of diversion, distraction, character slurs and switching of topics. Those are what I have been characterizing and I will no longer do so.
I apologize.
I suggest you go back and read what I said about that earlier in this thread, David.
I did, and it does not explain what I have asked you.
Answer my four questions if you will, if you won't, whatever.
Well then again you weren't paying attention nor to any of the other responses I've made on this and the other subjects you list.
see there you are shifting attention, i did read the posts, i did not see the answers, i see suggestions and vagueness, not answers, and then some things that just beg the question.
Like the verification of Perrat's model. Nor did you really explain where the proportion of elements came from you suggested that they might be formed in jets and then suggested something about z-pinches making helium, but you seemed rather vague, you did not really point to anything that the PC/PU model can demonstrate for nucleosynthesis.
So who do you think my employers and *handlers* are, David, since you brought the topic up?
As to that they are the same as you talking about my reading comprehension, it is not related to the issue at hand nor is it critical thinking. So it is equivalent, it is me getting off topic and out of the realm of critical thought and into baiting and humor. I thought the stuff about gnome clusters was particularly funny.
But here is another long post where you just refuse to pony up, because you apparently can't or won't explain your own models.
So cease fire , please do not say I ignore your posts, please don't say I have a reading comprehension problem.
perhaps what is lacking is an explanation on your part.
distinct values? It turns there are n!/(n-r)! possibilities. Which in this case is 17,100,720. That means the probability of picking those 5 specific z's in order from a range of 30 z's is 5.8 x 10-8.
