Ghost of V

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #80 on: December 28, 2014, 12:45:33 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

What?  No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.

Quote
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.

Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.

Just as aether is a hypothesis. And aether has just as much supporting evidence as dark matter. Therefore aether is not an assumption but a serious scientific hypothesis that we are actively studying.

We can both play this game.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 12:47:12 AM by Vauxhall »

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #81 on: December 28, 2014, 12:48:13 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

What?  No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.

Quote
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.

Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.

Just as aether is a hypothesis. And aether has just as much supporting evidence as dark matter. Therefore aether is not an assumption but a serious scientific hypothesis that we are actively studying.

We can both play this game.
Who is 'we'?  Need references to the study.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #82 on: December 28, 2014, 12:51:07 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.
Since 2006...

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Ghost of V

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #83 on: December 28, 2014, 12:54:37 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.
Since 2006...

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html


nasa.gov

Of course they're found "direct evidence".  ::)

"Proof" I mean.  ;D
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 12:56:08 AM by Vauxhall »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #84 on: December 28, 2014, 01:04:37 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.
Since 2006...

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html


nasa.gov

Of course they're found "direct evidence".  ::)

"Proof" I mean.  ;D
Special Pleading.

Should we just assume that anytime anyone produces evidence contrary to your world view, that you'll just plead the the conspiracy is hiding the truth?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Ghost of V

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2014, 01:06:56 AM »
Should we just assume that anytime anyone produces evidence contrary to your world view, that you'll just plead the the conspiracy is hiding the truth?

You're acting like you're new here.

NASA is not a credible source, you know this Gulliver.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #86 on: December 28, 2014, 01:12:36 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption.
Incorrect.  Observed gravitational lensing supports the existence of dark matter.

RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
Incorrect.  The earth was shown to be round long before dark matter was proposed.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Ghost of V

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #87 on: December 28, 2014, 01:24:55 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption.
Incorrect.  Observed gravitational lensing supports the existence of dark matter.

Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.

Rama Set

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #88 on: December 28, 2014, 01:32:50 AM »
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

What?  No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.

Quote
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.

Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.

Just as aether is a hypothesis. And aether has just as much supporting evidence as dark matter. Therefore aether is not an assumption but a serious scientific hypothesis that we are actively studying.

We can both play this game.

I have no problem granting that if you tell me what would falsify your Aether hypothesis.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #89 on: December 28, 2014, 02:01:13 AM »
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
You do realize that it's called "dark" matter because it isn't (currently) directly observable, right?  In this case, dark matter is indirectly observed by its effect on light (A.K.A. gravitational lensing).
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Ghost of V

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #90 on: December 28, 2014, 02:04:16 AM »
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
You do realize that it's called "dark" matter because it isn't (currently) directly observable, right?  In this case, dark matter is indirectly observed by its effect on light (A.K.A. gravitational lensing).

Incorrect. There is no evidence of dark matter. It is a hypothesis.

Aether is also invisible and not directly observable. It is equally viable.

Rama Set

Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #91 on: December 28, 2014, 02:17:44 AM »
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
You do realize that it's called "dark" matter because it isn't (currently) directly observable, right?  In this case, dark matter is indirectly observed by its effect on light (A.K.A. gravitational lensing).

Minus the modelling, the indirect evidence and the falsifiability. It is pretty crass to equate your non-work to the hard work of others.

Incorrect. There is no evidence of dark matter. It is a hypothesis.

Aether is also invisible and not directly observable. It is equally viable.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #92 on: December 28, 2014, 03:16:39 AM »
Should we just assume that anytime anyone produces evidence contrary to your world view, that you'll just plead the the conspiracy is hiding the truth?

You're acting like you're new here.

NASA is not a credible source, you know this Gulliver.
I know nothing of the sort. I accept or reject evidence without appeal to authority or poisoning the well, but rather the experiment's merits. You know, I treat sources fairly. You might want to try that methodology.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.