Posted on 12/14/2016 10:12:58 AM PST by fishtank
Dark matter caused the demise of the dinosaurs?
by John G. Hartnett
Published: 13 December 2016 (GMT+10)
Harvard University LisaRandallHarvardEdu American theoretical physicist and cosmologist Dr Lisa Randall is another scientist grasping at dark matter for answers. Dark matter has been invoked to solve many vexing problems in astrophysics and cosmology.1 Now it seems it has been invoked to solve the evolutionists’ problem of extinction of the dinosaurs.2
American theoretical physicist and cosmologist Dr Lisa Randall has developed a breakthrough five dimensional warped geometry theory. About two years ago she proposed a new hypothesis on dark matter which suggests the mysterious invisible substance that allegedly dominates the universe played a role in killing the dinosaurs.3 She even has written a book on it—Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs. In the book her new theory is summarised as follows:
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
No 'thinking' about it, that is exactly WHY they came up with "dark matter".
The 'estimated' MASS of a Galaxy was not enough to exhibit the gravitational force that we perceive based on the movement of objects at the outer fringes of a galaxy. Therefore there had to be more 'mass' that we simply could not see/detect.
No, but I can sing the entire theme to “Animaniacs” without looking up the lyrics!
Yet... it is called the Cosmological Constant, and it is a variable.
For a better understanding, remember these 'scientists' said that even though global average temperature shows either no change or a decline, it's actually getting hotter.
Or maybe it’s because we don’t understand the effects of ‘accumulated gravity on an extremely large scale’ and have ignored the concept of the effects from a vortex on that same scale.
Tornadoes carry and ‘spin’ round their center, a huge mass of objects. The wind itself has very little mass. Those objects , from trucks to dirt, should go spinning away from the ‘vortex’ due to centrifugal force.
Still, your theory should not be counted out. No one knows the real answer, yet.
Dark matter hacked the election!!!
“The sad thing is, short of a time machine being invented, we’ll never know for sure what did it.”
You can say the same about any conclusion from any branch of science that speculates on historical events rather than actually doing experimental science.
I have to make a correction to my previous post. I did not want to imply that dinosaurs were living at the last ice age, although there were interesting creatures at the time. Dino’saurs succumbed 65 mya to an impact and again the earth restarted. One of those six major impacts you noted.
“Dark Matter, a way to make the math seem to work.
Perhaps it belongs in the same category as the “luminiferous aether””
Don’t insult the aether like that. At least scientists came up with an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of aether, and the aether was decent enough to go away after that.
“But we know that there are more dimensions than just the four we can immediately observe...”
Why do you think we “know” that?
What does one talk about with her on a first date?
“Fact” is not a scientific term, so anyone trying to use it that way probably won’t give you any sensible answers.
re: “Don’t conflate origins with evolution. Evolution works on organisms already in existence.”
I guess I’m trying to pin down what you mean by “evolution”. We all see change within a specie, micro-evolution, however, that is not usually what is meant by “evolution” today.
Materialistic evolutionists do say that somehow, life came from non-life, and that “science” will one day find a natural cause for it. They say that because life exists, life evolving from non-life must have occurred therefore it is a “fact”. They also say that macro-evolution is a “fact”. I just wanted to find out what you meant by “evolution”.
“The ‘estimated’ MASS of a Galaxy was not enough to exhibit the gravitational force that we perceive based on the movement of objects at the outer fringes of a galaxy.”
It’s really even worse than that, because if you just increase the mass of the galaxy but keep the same mass distribution, then the motion would still not fit the equations. In order for “dark matter” to have any effect at all, it must be distributed in just the right spots so that it could alter the motion from what the equations predict to what we see.
So the “dark matter” must know what equations we will be using to try and predict the motion of galaxies, and then decide to distribute itself in such a way as to foil us. Really, I don’t think scientists realize it, but they are basically proposing that “dark matter” is intelligent and omniscient!
“Why do you think we “know” that?”
Because there are geometric principles that are mathematically and logically expressed in up to five dimensions.
A hypercube is mathematically true. Therefore even though we can’t directly observe it we know it is logical that it should exist and it is likewise irrational to argue that it can’t exist.
“Because there are geometric principles that are mathematically and logically expressed in up to five dimensions.”
The same principles can be expressed up to any arbitrary, or even an infinite number of dimensions, because they are simply mathematical abstractions, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the real world.
“A hypercube is mathematically true.”
Sure.
“Therefore even though we can’t directly observe it we know it is logical that it should exist...”
That’s called a non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from the argument you made. It’s logical that it COULD exist, not that it SHOULD exist.
“... and it is likewise irrational to argue that it can’t exist.”
I don’t think anyone argues that it “can’t” exist, but if you are doing science, you must demonstrate something exists, through experiment, rather than just positing that, since it might exist, we should assume it does.
Just reach a consensus with a few other scientists and call it settled.
Probably not particle physics ... you might be shocked to learn that scientists and engineers have all manner of interests far removed from their work in science and engineering.
“Therefore even though we can’t directly observe it we know it is logical that it should exist...”
That’s called a non sequitur.
__________________________________________
Have you ever entered an elevator and gone to the top of a tall building? Do you ever give any thought to the foundation of the building even though you can’t directly observe it? It’s logical that the foundation exists simply by the fact of your presence at the top of the building.
I don’t need to directly observe everything to know that it’s there. And while that may not constitute a scientific proof to you I’ve yet to encounter the tall building that didn’t have a foundation.
Likewise the existence of more than just four dimensions to me is equally rational and obvious.
I wrote a short evaluation of her “theory” on FR when it was first announced. In summary for her proposal depended on about five preposterous theories stacked one on another. There was no evidence for any of it. At the time she was being heralded as a great mind. I think she is an idiot. I have worked with some physicists and they are a weird breed even among scientists. Their minds do not work like those of normal people.
That metaphor doesn’t support your contention anymore than the previous argument did.
I mean, I could apply your metaphor to anything unobservable, for example:
“Since I can assume a tall building has a deep foundation without directly observing it, I can also assume that God exists without observing Him.”
“Since I can assume a tall building has a deep foundation without directly observing it, I can also assume that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow without observing it.”
et cetera...
The problem lies in the fact that, unlike higher dimensions, God, or pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, with buildings, we actually design them. We discovered the principles required for their design through experimentation, and so we have those principles to rely on when we make our assumptions. Thus our assumptions are quite solid, being based on known and tested principles. Comparing assumptions based on known and tested principles to assumptions based only on theoretical constructs is not a proper comparison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.