3 ms·

> it might be that some or all of it will end up being baryonic matter It can’t be. It’s already known that 5/6 ths of all the matter in the observable Univers

by acqq 8y ago

> it might be that some or all of it will end up being baryonic matter It can’t be. It’s already known that 5/6 ths of all the matter in the observable Universe can’t be baryonic. > There isn’t a consensus amongst scientists Only for completely useless definitions of the “concensus.”

dogma1138 8y ago
>It can’t be. It’s already known that 5/6 ths of all the matter in the observable Universe can’t be baryonic. No it's not known, it's highly unlikely that the "final" dark matter candidate will be completely made up of baryonic matter but it's not been exclusively proven. Only Siths deal in absolutes. >Only for completely useless definitions of the “concensus.” Do you have a more useful definition of consensus for this matter? if so please share it.
- gmjoe 8y ago
  By definition it's not baryonic, because we aren't detecting it and we would be detecting it if it were. "Dark" in this context means, in and of itself, non-baryonic. And please don't bring silly Star Wars references here, they don't help and this particular one is basically offensive. HN isn't reddit.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    No Dark didn’t mean non baryonic at first when DM was conceived and still does not mean that today dark was just that dark as it wasn’t emitting any light we could detect which is why CBM, rogue brown dwarfs and primordial black holes were all a candidate for dark matter at some point. And thanks for the advice I’ll keep using my SW references when they are fitting and this one is fitting indeed. Here is another one just for you began the dark matter war has.
- acqq 8y ago
  > it's highly unlikely that the "final" dark matter candidate will be completely made up of baryonic matter but it's not been exclusively proven. That "highly" in "highly unlikely" is the key here, that highly is "immensely huge" e.g.: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L3... "While future observations will determine the strength of the constraints from Eri II, existing data from Eri II and from the sample of compact ultra-faint dwarfs appear sufficient to rule out dark matter composed exclusively of MACHOs for all masses above ~10e−7 mass of the Sun." And if your definition of the "consensus" is 100.0000% then I do consider it useless. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus If you use Merriam-Webster's: "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" then yes, there is a consensus because "most" begins for me at "more than 60%." And I accept only those that are actually "in the field" and not those that studied something completely different but "have a strong opinion." Sorry, that's automatically useless. I know personally the Ph.Ds who believe nonsense as soon as they are out of the area they have researched personally. It's simply a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect as in "I was successful while studying X my whole life and therefore I believe I can 'understand' Y better than those who studied Y their whole life." And I'm talking here only about the natural sciences.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    I think you have very big problem with reading comprehension and you are strawmaning. At no point have I said that MACHO, cold baryionic matter or any of the other baryionic candidates are sufficient to explain dark matter, the point is that while we have more and less likely candidates we are no where closer today at singling our a good candidate that we can back up via observations or experiments than we were at the 70s. Dark Matter cannot be explained by elimination alone there is absolutely no single consensus on what it actually is or what the best candidate should be it doesn’t have to be 100% but it’s not 80%, or 60% either. But sure go ahead and continue to argue without actually adding anything of value.

by acqq 8y ago

dogma1138 8y ago

>It can’t be. It’s already known that 5/6 ths of all the matter in the observable Universe can’t be baryonic. No it's not known, it's highly unlikely that the "final" dark matter candidate will be completely made up of baryonic matter but it's not been exclusively proven. Only Siths deal in absolutes. >Only for completely useless definitions of the “concensus.” Do you have a more useful definition of consensus for this matter? if so please share it.

gmjoe 8y ago
By definition it's not baryonic, because we aren't detecting it and we would be detecting it if it were. "Dark" in this context means, in and of itself, non-baryonic. And please don't bring silly Star Wars references here, they don't help and this particular one is basically offensive. HN isn't reddit.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  No Dark didn’t mean non baryonic at first when DM was conceived and still does not mean that today dark was just that dark as it wasn’t emitting any light we could detect which is why CBM, rogue brown dwarfs and primordial black holes were all a candidate for dark matter at some point. And thanks for the advice I’ll keep using my SW references when they are fitting and this one is fitting indeed. Here is another one just for you began the dark matter war has.
acqq 8y ago
> it's highly unlikely that the "final" dark matter candidate will be completely made up of baryonic matter but it's not been exclusively proven. That "highly" in "highly unlikely" is the key here, that highly is "immensely huge" e.g.: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L3... "While future observations will determine the strength of the constraints from Eri II, existing data from Eri II and from the sample of compact ultra-faint dwarfs appear sufficient to rule out dark matter composed exclusively of MACHOs for all masses above ~10e−7 mass of the Sun." And if your definition of the "consensus" is 100.0000% then I do consider it useless. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus If you use Merriam-Webster's: "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" then yes, there is a consensus because "most" begins for me at "more than 60%." And I accept only those that are actually "in the field" and not those that studied something completely different but "have a strong opinion." Sorry, that's automatically useless. I know personally the Ph.Ds who believe nonsense as soon as they are out of the area they have researched personally. It's simply a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect as in "I was successful while studying X my whole life and therefore I believe I can 'understand' Y better than those who studied Y their whole life." And I'm talking here only about the natural sciences.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  I think you have very big problem with reading comprehension and you are strawmaning. At no point have I said that MACHO, cold baryionic matter or any of the other baryionic candidates are sufficient to explain dark matter, the point is that while we have more and less likely candidates we are no where closer today at singling our a good candidate that we can back up via observations or experiments than we were at the 70s. Dark Matter cannot be explained by elimination alone there is absolutely no single consensus on what it actually is or what the best candidate should be it doesn’t have to be 100% but it’s not 80%, or 60% either. But sure go ahead and continue to argue without actually adding anything of value.