Why it’s time to take alternatives to dark matter seriously

[Sci Patel]

Why it’s time to take alternatives to dark matter seriously

Over and over again, dark matter has resisted being pinned down, like a fleeting shadow in the woods. Every time physicists have searched for dark matter particles with powerful and sensitive experiments in abandoned mines and in Antarctica, and whenever they’ve tried to produce them in particle accelerators, they’ve come back empty-handed. For a while, physicists hoped to find a theoretical type of matter called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), but searches for them have repeatedly turned up nothing.

With the WIMP candidacy all but dead, dark matter is apparently the most ubiquitous thing physicists have never found. And as long as it’s not found, it’s still possible that there is no dark matter at all. An alternative remains: instead of huge amounts of hidden matter, some mysterious aspect of gravity could be warping the cosmos instead.

The notion that gravity behaves differently on large scales has been relegated to the fringe since Rubin’s and White’s heyday in the 1970s. But now it’s time to consider the possibility. Scientists and research teams should be encouraged to pursue alternatives to dark matter. Conferences and grant committees should allow physicists to hash out these theories and design new experiments. Regardless of who turns out to be right, such research on alternatives ultimately helps to crystallise the demarcation between what we don’t know and what we do. It will encourage challenging questions, spur reproducibility studies, poke holes in weak spots of the theories, and inspire new thinking about the way forward. And it will force us to decide what kinds of evidence we need to believe in something we cannot see.

[Robert Arvay]

In my ignorant view, dark matter is not necessarily matter.

I prefer to call it, Anomalous Gravity Source (AGS).

So far, the only confirmed source of gravity is matter,

which is why it is referred to as dark (ahem) matter.

If the gravitational effect can be produced without matter,

then that might provide a clue as to forming a theory that explains 

dark (ahem) matter.

However, afaik, there is no clear explanation as to how matter produces gravity.

Okay, it curves space, but this indicates a relationship between space-time and mass-energy

which afaik, is poorly understood if at all.

And since space, time, matter and energy are all fundamentals, not constructed from

more basic things (unless string theory, but then we still wind up with irreducible realities),

we are still at a loss to explain anything.

All we can do is to observe phenomena, the behavior of things, without understanding

what those things are, and why they behave the way they do.

Dark (ahem) matter may be God's way of showing us that we can never fully understand anything.

Of course I could be wrong.

.

.

[David Sundaram]

Some of my thoughts: Maybe 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' is just our (local ) way of 'explaining' the gravitational and/or energy-'growth' effects of what's happening in 'paralle[' universes. Maybe the effects 'reflect' due to the 'condensations' or 'expansions' of consciousness which are going on in our universe - we just think that 'consciousness' is so non-physical that it just can't affect the motions of matter or matter-energy.

Either way dark stuff will continue to remain transparent/invisible and impossible for us tp physically 'manipulate' or 'control'. It's the end of 'physics' as we have known (past! tense) it.

Sorry 'control-freaks' and 'nail-everything-down-with-conceptual-certainty'-ers. 😁

[Robert Arvay]

David, you seem angry.

[David Sundaram]

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 6:26:49 PM UTC-7, Robert Arvay wrote:

David, you seem angry.

 

I am not 'angry', at least not as far as I can tell. IMO, I just 'care' enough to want to shock people (in this case you) 'out' of continuing to go down the physical 'explanation' rabbit hole - because I 'see' fundamentalist physicalistic/materialistic beliefs as being one of the 'root' factors which has led humanity to its present 'crisis' (cross roads). Maybe think of me as a would-be friend impatiently (we don't have much time before the xxx 'hits the fan', IMO, Robert!) 'telling' someone to open his/her eyes so as to see where he/she is going.

This may not be meaningful to you but the following 'line' from The Bhagavad Gita comes to mind: "Whenever spirituality decays and materialism is rampant, then, O Arjuna, I reincarnate Myself!"

[Ben Iscatus]

David, if you stop the underlined and emboldened emphases, it will definitely help. Nobody likes to read that.

[Robert Arvay]

David, I am most assuredly not a physicalist.

Perhaps you do not perceive yourself as arrogant and condescending,

but that is how you seem to come across in writing.

Hopefully, you are nicer in person, face to face.

.

[Dana Lomas]

I'm thinking that the shadow is a kind of dark matter :))

[David Sundaram]

I am a 'stick'ler for logic, which I think all too many peeps wield sloppily, sweeping the implications of their often two-sided beliefs and pronouncements under the rug, for all sorts of unspoken 'reasons'. I give no quarter in said regard. That you stated that you think 'dark matter' ought to 'addressed' more rigorously led me to think you must basically be physicalist. You have asserted that you are not. Show me (more of) what you are then. I give no 'free rides' when it comes to honest association.

I appreciate that my standing up for and challengingly holding people to account based on my values and principles may come across as arrogant and condescending to those who think they are too presumptuous and demanding. I am certainly (as demonstrated in spades) not the kind of 'nice' person you apparently (arrogantly? condescendingly?) presume to 'nicely' suggest it would be better if I was (so as live up to your set of preferred  values and principles).

Maybe it will help if you think of me and accept me as a kind of rough-and-tumble 'kidder' - the kind of jester 🎃 who doesn't suffer 'imperious' (take-me-seriously-no-matter-what-I-say) statements lightly, however 'respectably' these may be 'postured'.

Logic is one of the Top-Trinity of my values. If you wanna try meeting half-way in this regard, maybe re-start by explaining why you think 'Gravity' (as in your 'Anomalous Gravity Source' label) is an important Metaphysical concept for us humans to 'speculate' (that's this group's charter purpose, isn't it?) about. Maybe I didn't get the true thrust of your proposition, I was 'poking' 'fun' at that statement which, among some of the other things said in this thread, I saw as being a purely physical issue/concern/speculation, i.e. one far from being Metaphysical by any meaningful 'measure'.

[David Sundaram]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 1:22:04 AM UTC-7, Ben Iscatus wrote:

David, if you stop the underlined and emboldened emphases, it will definitely help. Nobody likes to read that.

Ahh, another person who attempts to give weight to his personal preferences/wishes by presumptively thinking and speaking for everyone - which is an impossibility, really! 😯

I appreciate the difficulties you have with my style of writing, Ben, which may well put you and probably some others as well off from reading/understanding what I really mean to communicate.

Please know, that my various grammatical and formatting 'flourishes' are quite specifically aimed/intended to amplify awareness of what I am, at any given point, pointing to.

[Robert Arvay]

To David;

Perhaps I am the only one who noticed it, but when you compared yourself to a gruff "sergeant," 

that put me on notice that you consider yourself to have some kind of authority over, and / or 

superiority to, the other participants in this forum.

You further compounded that impression by using the pejorative, "control-freaks,"

 and 'nail-everything-down-with-conceptual-certainty'-ers.

This is somewhat the equivalent of barging into a room and loudly proclaiming that

you, rather than just your ideas, have more merit than the other forum participants.

As to my views on physicalism, I am not a purist.

I am an evangelical Christian who also agrees with Bernardo Kastrup on much of his

Idealist philosophy.

My specific views are in my self-published book, The God Paradigm,

which is described at

http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/

and discussed eclectically at

http://thegodparadigmdiscussion.blogspot.com/

I make it clear in my book that I claim no authority, no special wisdom,

but rely on sources that are available to everyone.

The God Paradigm is a worldview, a journey toward better understanding,

not a final destination.

Well, you asked, and I answered.

.

[David Sundaram]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 2:08:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Arvay wrote:

To David;

Perhaps I am the only one who noticed it, but when you compared yourself to a gruff "sergeant," 

that put me on notice that you consider yourself to have some kind of authority over, and / or 

superiority to, the other participants in this forum.

Hi-Ho Robert:

I didn't 'compare' myself (IMO). Rather (again, IMO) I declared myself as being a 'sergeant' type personality (implying a certain degree of experience and experienced-based skill set) in the context of an enterprise which (as I saw/see it) involves spiritual (i,e, metaphysical) truth and process related knowledge and wisdom. I have a certain degree of power and adeptitude, which I wield, hopefully beneficially, at my own discretion, but no 'authority' granted or 'superiority' acknowledged by anyone else.

You further compounded that impression by using the pejorative, "control-freaks,"

 and 'nail-everything-down-with-conceptual-certainty'-ers.

That is how I see the personality types I was referencing, I do believe there are certain 'negative' results which tend to accrue when and as people perseveratively function in such fashion. Any 'negative' judgment in said regard is intended to apply to such modes of functioning, not to any people who function that way. I have often (much more so in the past) functioned or attempted to function in those ways myself. I regard myself as having made 'progress' (spiritually speaking) to the extent that I no longer do so. The 'journey' on continues ...I continue to make 'refinements' (improvements?) in said regards.

This is somewhat the equivalent of barging into a room and loudly proclaiming that

you, rather than just your ideas, have more merit than the other forum participants.

This is an inaccurate 'equivalency' you are asserting, IMO. It is my ideas which I proclaim as meritorious and worthy of consideration. I am quite having them be criticized, debated with and either accepted or rejected after being considered. What you are doing here (IMO) is attempting to debase my personality instead of engaging with the ideas amd perspectives I have presentationally shared. You are evading engaging with the issues I I have raised in response to various things you have said/implied (again, IMO).

My suggestion and invitation to you: relate to and deal with the ideational issues at hand - with the 'message', not the 'messenger', IOW. That is if you really want to engage in a mutually meaningful, hence relationally productive, discussion.

As to my views on physicalism, I am not a purist.

I am an evangelical Christian who also agrees with Bernardo Kastrup on much of his

Idealist philosophy.

My specific views are in my self-published book, The God Paradigm,

which is described at

http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/

and discussed eclectically at

http://thegodparadigmdiscussion.blogspot.com/

I make it clear in my book that I claim no authority, no special wisdom,

but rely on sources that are available to everyone.

The God Paradigm is a worldview, a journey toward better understanding,

not a final destination.

Well, you asked, and I answered.

I very much appreciate your self-revealing declaration as well as the links to your writing., I look foward to getting to know more abut you and what you are about, Robert.

[Lou Gold]

Honestly, I dunno -- I'm just lou but I've always been intrigued (since early childhood) about a special kind of darkness from which the light emerges, perhaps a "Cosmic Womb." I believe I saw it once for perhaps a nanosecond. The event for me was transforming. I have no words for it other than, perhaps, "forever and ever, amen."

[David Sundaram]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 9:11:16 PM UTC-7, Lou Gold wrote:

Honestly, I dunno -- I'm just lou but I've always been intrigued (since early childhood) about a special kind of darkness from which the light emerges, perhaps a "Cosmic Womb." I believe I saw it once for perhaps a nanosecond. The event for me was transforming. I have no words for it other than, perhaps, "forever and ever, amen."

A 'graphic' picture-'message 'revelation' from your (the?) invisible 'Inner' Self, maybe?