No Dark Matter in our part of the galaxy?

[Reality Check]

Let's see whether Reality Check or Nereid care to discuss the details of that Kroupa paper and show us specifically where the reasoning is incorrect.

Why should we discuss a paper that you have obviously not read?
But let us start with his "Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem". This is a strange term since there are theorems exists in mathematics not physics. All we have is his assertion that the standard model of cosmology predicts that there are only two types of dwarf galaxies (basically with and without DM). That does not sound right to me - I would expect a range of types from high % of DM to low % of DM.
So where are his citations to the actual standard model of cosmology predictions of these 2 types of dwarf galaxies, TooMany?

His "reasoning" is shown to be wrong by observations, e.g. see the work covered in Dark Matter in the Milky Way's Dwarf Spheroidal Satellites

The Milky Way's dwarf spheroidal satellites include the nearest, smallest and least luminous galaxies known. They also exhibit the largest discrepancies between dynamical and luminous masses. This article reviews the development of empirical constraints on the structure and kinematics of dSph stellar populations and discusses how this phenomenology translates into constraints on the amount and distribution of dark matter within dSphs. Some implications for cosmology and the particle nature of dark matter are discussed, and some topics/questions for future study are identified

[Reality Check]

CO is commonly used as a tracer of cold H2 since direct detection is not practical. Besides the issue of variations in metallicity in different parts of the galaxy (affecting CO concentrations), there are other reasons to doubt the accuracy of CO as a tracer of H2:

From: Gas and dust in Molecular Clouds: Density, Temperature and Velocity Structure (Havard PhD thesis by Scott Schnee, 2006).

You cite a sentence from a 144 page thesis () and forget to look up the reference:
Dust and gas emission in Barnard 5, Langer, W. D.; Wilson, R. W.; Goldsmith, P. F.; Beichman, C. A., Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 337, Feb. 1, 1989, p. 355-381
They conclude that "For single homogeneous clouds, (C-13)O is the best CO tracer of mass and gives the best estimate of virial mass.".
IOW the mass of a molecular clouds (including H2) has the best estimate given by the CO tracer.

You still have presented no evidence that the accuracy of using CO to measure H2 is

1. Biased towards missing H2 (it could be the other way but IMO is not)
2. Misses enough H2 to explain the rotation curves of galaxies.

There is strong evidence that DM exists (not just velocity curves). So what mechanism excludes DM from galaxy halos and thus helping to explain rotation curves?

[Reality Check]

You misunderstand my usage of CDM. Did you do that on purpose or do you have trouble using context to determine meaning? I was simply using CDM as a name for the Big Bang Theory as it was at the time the "acceleration" was discovered.

There is no way to misunderstand any usage of CDM - it means Cold Dark Matter.
But what you seem to be complaining about is the scientific method, i.e. that scientists change theories to match observations.
So we start off with plain BBT to explain Hubble's Law.
In 1933, Zwicky found "missing matter" in galaxy clusters. Rubin found that galaxies were missing matter in 1975. By then observational techniques had advanced enough so that astronomers were confident that most ordinary matter can be detected (i.e. they were not missing 4-400 times as much matter as they were detecting). Thus they proposed dark matter to explain these observations. The model is now BBT+DM.
Then we have dark energy and the update to BBT+DM+Lambda.

Getting rid of DM leaves a big gap - just where is the 23% of the universe that is nonbaryonic matter? And just how exotic will that "DM" have to be?

[parejkoj]

I will admit that I have no idea how the variations in the CMB are found to be consistent with the supernova data. Can you share a reference?

This is what I've been trying to get you to do since nearly my first response to your posts. The WMAP observations predict certain values for the energy density of the Universe. Plug those values into the Friedman equation, integrate it, and Viola Voila, you've got a redshift/distance relationship. It's really as simple as that. All you have to do is, do the math!

I'll let other people take care of your significant misreading of the history of the field.

Concerning BAO as an actual prediction, I have to admit complete ignorance. I know you mentioned it before. It is a difficult subject to get my head around and I would appreciate some explanatory references if you care to share some.

I've given you plenty of references in other posts. Those references range from the very basic to the quite detailed. I also just gave you a paper with the most recent BAO measurement that includes references to all the relevant literature. I certainly recommend starting a new thread if you want to ask about them, but if your tack is similar to these other threads, I daresay you won't get very far.

I find myself skeptical however of the claimed accuracy. Why? Well you yourself stated that the BAO results in a density variation in space of just a few percent which I believe is measured statistically using a two point correlation in SDSS data? The claim that this correlation of small density variations (which I suppose are somewhat random rather than perfectly regular) can be used to accurately measure distances to 5% is hard to swallow.

Do you also find it hard to swallow that we can acquire the complete genomes of individuals from millions of DNA fragments that are only a few hundred base pairs long? Is it hard to swallow that we can separate the effects of ENSO, volcanoes, and solar activity from the human-caused global warming signal in 5 quite different temperature records?

You just love to say that you don't believe results, the particulars of which you show near complete ignorance. You go on and on with your "lists of problems with LCDM", without really understanding what they mean, nor the nature of the related observations. Maybe you really are smarter than the hundreds of astronomers who have contributed to our modern understanding of cosmology, but I rather doubt it. You are certainly less knowledgeable about the field than they are.

I think you really need to sit down and meditate on Nereid's posts some. She knows a lot more about this topic than you do, and her questions are nearly always quite relevant. And if you want the rest of us to take you seriously, you should definitely consider making some quantitative statements, since that's what astronomers do.

[parejkoj]

I was simply using CDM as a name for the Big Bang Theory as it was at the time the "acceleration" was discovered. It is now called LCDM, the lamda referring to the acceleration.

That Lambda was introduced because of the observations, not just because we thought it'd be cool. I have suggested to you numerous times that you should try performing the necessary calculations to predict the redshift/distance modulus relationship for supernova for various cosmologies. You've never taken me up on it, nor have you even expressed any interest in doing so. From this I gather that your posts are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I don't have an explanation for the acceleration, but many are possible and it may not even be real. Identifying it as something real (Dark Energy) and announcing that it comprises 75% of the Universe at this point seems a bit premature, but that's typical in cosmology.

No, there are not "many" possible explanations. There are roughly two that manage to match a good deal of the observed data (modern MOND, and modern Big Bang with Omega_L > 0 and Omega_M < 1 and comprised mostly of non-baryonic matter), and precisely one that fits almost all of the observations (LCDM). Your waving your hands about suggesting that there must be other explanations out there strikes me as exceptionally intellectually lazy, since you won't do even any calculations yourself, and seem to lack the necessary background to properly critique both the observations and the models.

[tusenfem]

I don't have an explanation for the acceleration, but many are possible and it may not even be real.

TooMany it is time to stop with these general unsupported claims. The fact that you hav no explanation for something does not give you the right to just state but many are possibe. If you really think many are possible then you actually will present at least a bunch of these possibilities.

If you want to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. This is a science board, so you will have to do some work too. So no more unfounded general claims in this thread or in the other threads where you are discussing you skepitcism of dark matter.

[Cougar]

But let us start with his "Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem".... All we have is his assertion that the standard model of cosmology predicts that there are only two types of dwarf galaxies (basically with and without DM). That does not sound right to me...

That was the first thing that struck me, too, about Kroupa's diatribe - he bases his "falsification" on a false dichotomy straw man! I'm no professional, but I've read a lot of books on cosmology and astrophysics, and I've never even heard of this "dual dwarf galaxy" thing, much less understood it to be one of the main underpinnings of the Standard Cosmological Model, the falsification of which Kroupa imagines to outrival 100 years of scientific investigation....

[Cougar]

But what you seem to be complaining about is the scientific method, i.e. that scientists change theories to match observations.

Thank you, RC, for clearly expressing what I, and AFAIK Nereid, have been pointing out. TooMany apparently sees most of contemporary science as simply wrong, and scientists are constantly tweaking it to account for "discrepancies", making it even more wrong.

Such a view seems pathological. Contemporary science offers the best explanation available for this time and place. But the Universe does not necessarily have to fit perfectly into that explanation, and it might have to change to conform to new findings. Instead of thinking the older explanation was "wrong" and the scientists are somehow "cheating" when they make modifications to the explanation to account for the new findings, instead the older explanation should be viewed as "right" for its time and place, and now with the new observations, it's more right. In your view, TooMany, every scientific explanation would always be wrong, since new observations will always be made, and every scientific explanation will eventually be modified and made more correct to account for the updated information. Instead of scientists "standing on the shoulders of giants," TooMany's view has midgets standing on his shoulders. The ultimate in presumption.

[TooMany]

Why should we discuss a paper that you have obviously not read?

Where on earth did you get that idea? I read the entire paper about 1 month ago. Did you bother to read it, or do you already know that it must be wrong without reading it?

But let us start with his "Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem". This is a strange term since there are theorems exists in mathematics not physics.

I think his point in using this unusual terminology is that he is "mathematically" or "logically" building a case based on what is known about these galaxies to demonstrate that CDM is an untenable assumption. The argument is somewhat complex because he explores each possible explanation for observations and one by one eliminates them. I believe he has resorted to this formalism so that it is not possible to misconstrue his argument (without simply ignoring it). Your argument against his terminology is, well, not convincing.

All we have is his assertion that the standard model of cosmology predicts that there are only two types of dwarf galaxies (basically with and without DM). That does not sound right to me - I would expect a range of types from high % of DM to low % of DM.

Did you read the paper? What he is actually saying is that there are dwarf galaxies that have formed in the normal way assumed in "standard cosmology". These galaxies are supposed to have dark matter halos. Such galaxies are constrained to contain mostly DM by the same theory. The other type of dwarf galaxies are those that are formed in response to tidal disturbances in galaxies. Standard cosmology agrees that dwarf galaxies formed tidally are stripped of most of their non-baryonic DM. These two types of galaxies should exhibit different properties since one is largely DM while the other is mostly baryonic. However, "only one type of dwarf galaxy is observed to exist on the baryonic Tully-Fisher plot and in the radius mass plane." That is, the galaxies follow the same rationships to their baryonic mass with or without DM dominating the overall mass. Therefore he concludes that the idea that there are actually two very different types of dwarf galaxies is false and that this falsifies the current standard model of cosmology (which respect to dark matter).

That is a simple statement of his logic. The paper however is much longer because shows in detail how alternate assumptions that could be used to escape this conclusion are not tenable. It also points out that what we know about the dwarf satellites of the Milky Way in particular is inconsistent with the dark matter theory of their origin. First, there are far too few (by orders of magnitude) and second, the ones that do exists orbit the galaxy in a single phase space in a more or less polar plane. This is also inconsistent with DM theory because the distribution of satellites should be spherical. In a separate paper Kroupa argues that most of the Galaxy's satellites were acquired in a merger long ago. Thus even fewer of the satellite galaxies predicted by CDM theory actually exist.

So where are his citations to the actual standard model of cosmology predictions of these 2 types of dwarf galaxies, TooMany?

There are 232 references to the SMoC (current standard model of cosmology) in the paper. Koupra is a mature, well know and respected astronomer. He certainly is fully aware of the implications of SMoC in this area. I didn't count the referenced papers, but there appear to be a couple of hundred.

Also, starting on page 32, Kroupa list 22 problems with standard cosmology. You might look them over in case you are not aware of some of them.

Paval Kroupa
Head of the Stellar Populations and Dynamics research group at the Abt. Sternwarte, Argelander-Institut fuer Astronomie, Universitaet Bonn
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet

His "reasoning" is shown to be wrong by observations, e.g. see the work covered in Dark Matter in the Milky Way's Dwarf Spheroidal Satellites

Would you care to explain where his reasoning is shown to be wrong in that 70 page paper? (Kroupa's paper was published one month after this one.)

If this is a paper that you choose to trust as "mainstream", I recommend that you read sections "6.1 Cosmology" and "6.2 Particle Physics" starting on page 35 which honestly summarize some of the issues challenging CDM theory. While the author does not belief evidence has ruled out CDM, he does point out serious issues that need resolution.

By the way, the papers referenced by this paper sound really interesting. I'll try to read some of them.

[Reality Check]

Where on earth did you get that idea? I read the entire paper about 1 month ago. Did you bother to read it, or do you already know that it must be wrong without reading it?

Bacause if you had read it then you would understand that he starts of with what looks like a strawman argument, i.e. an unsupported assertion that there are only 2 types of SM related dwarf galaxies.

His conclustion and so his reasoning that came to that conclusion is wrong: See the work covered in Dark Matter in the Milky Way's Dwarf Spheroidal Satellites.

Also, starting on page 32, Kroupa list 22 problems with standard cosmology. You might look them over in case you are not aware of some of them.

ETA:
Wow - you certainly know how to pick cranks!
What he has is a history of cosmology from 1980 with each discovery marked as a failure of standard cosmology!
He does have some items that are actual, remaining problems, e,g, the cusp/core problem, missing satellite galaxies. These are not problems with the existence of dark matter which has strong evidence. These are problems with the nature of dark matter and how it interacts with normal matter.

There is an item where he is ignorant of the explanation, the Train Wreck cluster

A later analysis[2] of the motions of 293 galaxies in the cluster field has suggested that Abell 520 is “a cluster forming at the crossing of three filaments of the large scale structure. The filament aligned with the LOS (line of sight) and projected onto the center of the forming cluster might explain the apparent massive dark core shown by gravitational lensing analysis”. In other words, the dark matter ‘core’ may be associated with a filament aligned with the direction of observation and not be at the centre of the cluster.

[TooMany]

There is no way to misunderstand any usage of CDM - it means Cold Dark Matter.

That's absurd Reality Check since I just explicitly told you how I was using the term. I ought to know what I meant, shouldn't I?

But what you seem to be complaining about is the scientific method, i.e. that scientists change theories to match observations.

Not at all. I was just trying to point out that this theory did not so much predict observation as it attempted to account for after the fact. That in itself doesn't make it wrong, but it's nothing like GR which has accurately predicted all kinds of things.

So we start off with plain BBT to explain Hubble's Law.
In 1933, Zwicky found "missing matter" in galaxy clusters. Rubin found that galaxies were missing matter in 1975. By then observational techniques had advanced enough so that astronomers were confident that most ordinary matter can be detected (i.e. they were not missing 4-400 times as much matter as they were detecting). Thus they proposed dark matter to explain these observations. The model is now BBT+DM.
Then we have dark energy and the update to BBT+DM+Lambda.

We agree that there is unseen mass. We disagree about what it must be. You insist that it must be non-baryonic, but I think it possible that it could be baryonic.

Getting rid of DM leaves a big gap - just where is the 23% of the universe that is nonbaryonic matter? And just how exotic will that "DM" have to be?

Are you aware that surveys of the local universe out to 50 Mpc come up with only 1/3 of all the mass (DM and baryons) that is supposed to be present according to standard cosmology? I just learned this myself. Yet another big mystery to be solved.

CDM is the theory claiming a new, exotic, as-yet-undetected type of matter. What's so exotic about more baryons?

[TooMany]

That Lambda was introduced because of the observations, not just because we thought it'd be cool. I have suggested to you numerous times that you should try performing the necessary calculations to predict the redshift/distance modulus relationship for supernova for various cosmologies. You've never taken me up on it, nor have you even expressed any interest in doing so. From this I gather that your posts are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

No, there are not "many" possible explanations. There are roughly two that manage to match a good deal of the observed data (modern MOND, and modern Big Bang with Omega_L > 0 and Omega_M < 1 and comprised mostly of non-baryonic matter), and precisely one that fits almost all of the observations (LCDM). Your waving your hands about suggesting that there must be other explanations out there strikes me as exceptionally intellectually lazy, since you won't do even any calculations yourself, and seem to lack the necessary background to properly critique both the observations and the models.

There are thousands of calculations that one could make. You didn't actually ask me to calculate, you asked me to plot. There are such plots in the literature. I understand that the luminosity/distance relationship observed for type 1a SN has turned out to be slightly different from what was expected by the standard model at the time it was discovered. Where did I indicate that I thought it was just "cool" to add Lambda? In fact you quoted my statement which exactly agrees with your understanding of what happened. I think what you are angry about is that I don't take the measurements as the final word on the issue and I think it's premature to invoke yet another physics mystery called Dark Energy.

If MOND and LCDM are the only possibilities, then we will have a really big problem if we cannot solve all of the issues that both of them face. In that case, we will have an impossible Universe.

Truly ruling out "possibilities" is a difficult task. Take non-baryonic matter. This idea has been around for 40 years but cannot be ruled out because the particles are undetectable.

[Reality Check]

That's absurd Reality Check since I just explicitly told you how I was using the term. I ought to know what I meant, shouldn't I?

That's absurd TooMany since you just explicitly did not tell us how you were using the term in your original post. You ought to know that people cannot read your mind, shouldn't you?

I was just trying to point out that this theory did not so much predict observation as it attempted to account for after the fact.

Then you would be wrong since "this theory" (standard cosmology) did predict observations before the fact, e.g. the CMB, the predictions of inflation, even dark energy was predicted (as a non-zero cosmological constant)!
Feasibility of Measuring the Cosmological Constant Lambda and Mass Density Omega Using Type IA Supernovae (1995)
The cosmological constant (1992)

We agree that there is unseen mass. We disagree about what it must be. You insist that it must be non-baryonic, but I think it possible that it could be baryonic.

We do agree that there is unseen mass. We do disagree about what it must be.
I insist that the majority of DM is non-baryonic matter because that is the evidence from the large scale structure of the universe, WMAP data, etc.

You though seem to be insisting that all (or maybe a majority of) DM is baryonic matter. This leaves you with the problem of explaing why cosmological models state that 23% of the universe is non-baryonic matter. If it is not DM then what it is?

[TooMany]

Thank you, RC, for clearly expressing what I, and AFAIK Nereid, have been pointing out. TooMany apparently sees most of contemporary science as simply wrong, and scientists are constantly tweaking it to account for "discrepancies", making it even more wrong.

Such a view seems pathological. Contemporary science offers the best explanation available for this time and place. But the Universe does not necessarily have to fit perfectly into that explanation, and it might have to change to conform to new findings. Instead of thinking the older explanation was "wrong" and the scientists are somehow "cheating" when they make modifications to the explanation to account for the new findings, instead the older explanation should be viewed as "right" for its time and place, and now with the new observations, it's more right. In your view, TooMany, every scientific explanation would always be wrong, since new observations will always be made, and every scientific explanation will eventually be modified and made more correct to account for the updated information. Instead of scientists "standing on the shoulders of giants," TooMany's view has midgets standing on his shoulders. The ultimate in presumption.

No, no, no. You completely misunderstand me. I cannot prove (myself) that LCDM is wrong. Maybe it's right. But if it is, there are lots of problems with it's predictions that need to be explained. Moreover the DM particle needs to be found and some physical basis for inflation is needed.

My contention is that LCDM is built on an unproven foundation, in particular DM and inflation (and even expansion which is assumed to be the cause of the redshift). Because of that I feel that it is not yet a solid theory. It is more like a guess that is supported in part by things that we do not even know exist and cannot directly measure. That is very different from other sciences like biology, chemistry and laboratory physics. Astronomy is a very difficult science because you cannot always determine what the heck you are measuring really. It's unique in that there is no such thing as a controlled experiment. It is very difficult to exclude effects that affect what we observe. We know so little we don't yet even know what our measurements mean for sure. Many conclusions reached are full of assumptions which are just good guesses, but hard to prove. Astronomy is highly dependent on emissions powerful enough to detect with today's instruments. Things get very difficult to detect/measure in the cold and dark places and at vast distances. Therefore completely excluding possibilities by observation is not always possible and that has to be kept in mind, not ignored.

In particular, cosmology (IMO) is the shakiest part of the whole field of astronomical study. But oddly, it the most self-assured, nearly dogmatic. E.g. "there are only two possibilities MOND or BBT CDM". You see the theory as largely proven with just some I's to dot and T's to cross. From what I have read, I do not see it that way at all. I see a theory that has made some major unproven assumptions to support itself and is now struggling to explain why many of it's predictions appear to be wrong.

The science of cosmology has theorized well beyond it's ability to observe. That's OK, but to be dogmatic about this theory is not "scientific", it is pedantic.

[TooMany]

Then you would be wrong since "this theory" (standard cosmology) did predict observations before the fact, e.g. the CMB, the predictions of inflation, even dark energy was predicted (as a non-zero cosmological constant)!
Feasibility of Measuring the Cosmological Constant Lambda and Mass Density Omega Using Type IA Supernovae (1995)
The cosmological constant (1992)

Do you understand the meaning of the word "prediction". Dark energy would have been predicted if someone showed before it was found, that "the standard model calculates that there is a cosmic acceleration superimposed on the expansion and we expect it to have a value of roughly x". Nothing of a kind happened. The acceleration was a complete surprise, not a prediction.

I insist that the majority of DM is non-baryonic matter because that is the evidence from the large scale structure of the universe, WMAP data, etc.

You though seem to be insisting that all (or maybe a majority of) DM is baryonic matter. This leaves you with the problem of explaing why cosmological models state that 23% of the universe is non-baryonic matter. If it is not DM then what it is?

But I'm not insisting that DM is baryonic. As I have stated repeatedly, I am arguing that the possibility has not been eliminated. And I'm receiving an endless barrage of flack for claiming such a thing is possible. I have never claimed that it has been proven. Everything I have argued is aimed at the demonstrating the "possibility" is not excluded. I do not have sufficient evidence to prove it one way or the other.

[Reality Check]

Do you understand the meaning of the word "prediction".

Can you understand that the year 1992 (paper predicting dark energy and refering to earlier predictions) is before 1998?
Can you understand that the year 1995 (paper suggesting how to detect dark energy using Type 1A supernovae) is before 1998?
Can you understand that the paper that discovered dark energy in 1998 cited previous papers:
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
including
Goobar, A. & Perlmutter, S. 1995, ApJ, 450, 14: Feasibility of Measuring the Cosmological Constant Lambda and Mass Density Omega Using Type IA Supernovae
Carroll, S. M., Press, W. H., & Turner, E. L., 1992, ARAA, 30, 499: The cosmological constant
(guess where you have seen these papers cited before, TooMany!)
ETA:
Supernovae as a standard candle for cosmology, Colgate, S. A., 1979

It is suggested that a coordinated program of observations of supernovae (SN), particularly Type I supernovae (SN I), with the Space Telescope has the potential for determining the cosmological constant with greater accuracy than on the basis of other standard candles.

The acceleration was a complete prediction, not a surprise.

But I'm not insisting that DM is baryonic. As I have stated repeatedly, I am arguing that the possibility has not been eliminated.

If you are insisting that the possibility that all DM is baryonic has been eliminated then you are wrong.
If you are insisting that some DM is baryonic then you are just stating what everyone insists (), e.g. neutrinos are DM and baryonic, MACHOs may contribute a small % to DM, H2 in molecular clouds may contribute a small amount to DM.

[Shaula]

In particular, cosmology (IMO) is the shakiest part of the whole field of astronomical study. But oddly, it the most self-assured, nearly dogmatic

You perceive it as dogma simply because you dismiss the arguments that support the conclusions reached then claim that the conclusions are dogmatic because there is no support. There really isn't fruitful any way to argue with you on this as far as I can see.

[tusenfem]

No, no, no. You completely misunderstand me. I cannot prove (myself) that LCDM is wrong. Maybe it's right. But if it is, there are lots of problems with it's predictions that need to be explained. Moreover the DM particle needs to be found and some physical basis for inflation is needed.

My contention is that LCDM is built on an unproven foundation, in particular DM and inflation (and even expansion which is assumed to be the cause of the redshift). Because of that I feel that it is not yet a solid theory. It is more like a guess that is supported in part by things that we do not even know exist and cannot directly measure. That is very different from other sciences like biology, chemistry and laboratory physics. Astronomy is a very difficult science because you cannot always determine what the heck you are measuring really. It's unique in that there is no such thing as a controlled experiment. It is very difficult to exclude effects that affect what we observe. We know so little we don't yet even know what our measurements mean for sure. Many conclusions reached are full of assumptions which are just good guesses, but hard to prove. Astronomy is highly dependent on emissions powerful enough to detect with today's instruments. Things get very difficult to detect/measure in the cold and dark places and at vast distances. Therefore completely excluding possibilities by observation is not always possible and that has to be kept in mind, not ignored.

In particular, cosmology (IMO) is the shakiest part of the whole field of astronomical study. But oddly, it the most self-assured, nearly dogmatic. E.g. "there are only two possibilities MOND or BBT CDM". You see the theory as largely proven with just some I's to dot and T's to cross. From what I have read, I do not see it that way at all. I see a theory that has made some major unproven assumptions to support itself and is now struggling to explain why many of it's predictions appear to be wrong.

The science of cosmology has theorized well beyond it's ability to observe. That's OK, but to be dogmatic about this theory is not "scientific", it is pedantic.

Okay TooMany that is enough, if you cannot proof it is wrong then so be it, but don't come with a huge paragraph beating researchers over the head that they don't know what they are doing. Up to now you have not shown anything concrete, you have hinted at possible problems that may exist and that is fine and that can be discussed, but if you want to negate cosmology as it stands at the moment you will be kicked into ATM.

This is your last warning.

If you think it is wrong, prove it in ATM.

[Cougar]

We know so little we don't yet even know what our measurements mean for sure.

I think you're projecting your own admitted ignorance onto the scientific community as a whole. This is a huge mistake. The more you study about what scientists are finding out lately, the more you will appreciate how exceptionally clever this group is.

You represent that the astrophysical community is a group of unthinking automatons blindly following what they learned as undergrads? You have no authority, background, or evidence for such a representation. Your position has the credibility of a little dog barking at thunder.

[Reality Check]

If you are insisting that some DM is baryonic then you are just stating what everyone insists (), e.g. neutrinos are DM and baryonic, MACHOs may contribute a small % to DM, H2 in molecular clouds may contribute a small amount to DM.

Whoops - neutrinos are non-baryonic DM!

[TooMany]

You perceive it as dogma simply because you dismiss the arguments that support the conclusions reached then claim that the conclusions are dogmatic because there is no support. There really isn't fruitful any way to argue with you on this as far as I can see.

The physicists at the LHC are not willing to say they have found the Higgs boson until they have sigma 5 certainty and consistency with two different types of detectors. Cosmologist seem to have a much lower bar for declaring discoveries. Am I mistaken in this?

[Tensor]

The physicists at the LHC are not willing to say they have found the Higgs boson until they have sigma 5 certainty and consistency with two different types of detectors. Cosmologist seem to have a much lower bar for declaring discoveries. Am I mistaken in this?

That's about the same as claiming biologists have a much lower standard for evolution because they don't have all the transitional fossils.

[TooMany]

That's about the same as claiming biologists have a much lower standard for evolution because they don't have all the transitional fossils.

I don't think that is a good analogy. This is boring, but all I'm say is that astronomy is a very difficult science. There are no "experiments". The measurements and what they mean are simply not as clear cut as in laboratory sciences where conditions can be controlled. Assumptions must be used to obtain some conclusions, but the assumptions are not easily verified. This is not the fault of astronomers, it's just the way things are.

[Tensor]

I don't think that is a good analogy.

I do, you're claiming the same thing. You claim that astronomers can't do experiments (which isn't true, but believe what you will), so you must claim that paleontologists can't do experiments either.

This is boring, but all I'm say is that astronomy is a very difficult science.

It's not as difficult as you are making it out to be. Can observations be tricky? Yes. Can observations be on the edge of what's possible? Yes. But, you haven't presented anything except cherry-pick quotes while ignoring most of the rest of the papers. Or, you are only using certain authors, while ignoring any refutations of those authors. You want to throw out possibly wrong hypotheses, while ignoring that those same hypotheses explain other related things, not just possibly well, but quite well. While ignoring that the idea you seem to prefer is in conflict with several other observations.

The measurements and what they mean are simply not as clear cut as in laboratory sciences where conditions can be controlled.

Maybe not, but in astronomy and astrophysics, ideas can be excluded rather easily.

Assumptions must be used to obtain some conclusions, but the assumptions are not easily verified.

According to who, you? You, who have shown a rather great propensity not to understand some of the more basic knowledge required to understand what the astronomers and astrophysicists are claiming?

This is not the fault of astronomers, it's just the way things are.

Then why not say that, instead of insinuating the astronomers or astrophysicists accept some lower standard? Since you seem to think they accept this lower standard, without providing any kind of proof of this... How does Malmquist Bias cause statistical problems with the data set? What are the usual Bayesian requirements for acceptance? How many Monte Carlo runs are considered a minimum to be statistically significant?

[tusenfem]

I don't think that is a good analogy. This is boring, but all I'm say is that astronomy is a very difficult science. There are no "experiments". The measurements and what they mean are simply not as clear cut as in laboratory sciences where conditions can be controlled. Assumptions must be used to obtain some conclusions, but the assumptions are not easily verified. This is not the fault of astronomers, it's just the way things are.

Really, TooMany? You come with another rambling message without any foundation whatsoever after my message above? Only how YOU feel it is?
Forget it, take it to ATM, you will no longer post in this thread and you get infracted.

[tnjrp]

Tangential to the discussion, spotted on g+ today:
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cosmolo...-filament.html