Cosmology News Physics

Blasphemy about dark matter ?

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG From the Dark Matter Deniers.

At Discover:

Exploring a blasphemous alternative to one of modern physics’ most vexing enigmas.

We’d have to pay to read the article, but the language intended to draw us in is surely interesting.

A second career for Torquemada? Or is the whole “denialism” sturm-und-flapdoodle beginning to attract well-deserved mockery?

Denialism these days usually means a willingness to address inconvenient facts. Just as quote mining usually means quoting Darwin’s followers when they let down their guard and speak honestly with each other.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

8 Replies to “Blasphemy about dark matter ?

  1. 1
    AveryM says:

    You’re a bit ahead of my university’s subscription — they don’t have the July issue catalogued yet. But I think the headline really does tell it all.

  2. 2
  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Mantis Shrimp – Fastest Punch in the World – video
    Creature’s ‘dactyl club’ filters shear waves to resist damage – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: The “smasher” peacock mantis shrimp is able to repeatedly pummel the shells of prey using a bizarre hammer-like appendage that, new research shows, can withstand rapid-fire blows by neutralizing certain frequencies of “shear waves.”
    The “dactyl club” can reach an acceleration of 10,000 Gs, unleashing a barrage of ferocious impacts with the speed of a .22 caliber bullet.
    “The smasher mantis shrimp will hit many times per day. It is amazing,”,,
    The club is made of a composite material containing fibers of chitin, the same substance found in many marine crustacean shells and insect exoskeletons but arranged in a helicoidal structure that resembles a spiral staircase. This spiral architecture, new research findings show, is,, designed to survive the repeated high-velocity blows by filtering out certain frequencies of waves, called shear waves, that are particularly damaging.,,,
    The researchers modeled the structure with the same mathematical equations used to study materials in solid-state physics and photonics, showing the structure possesses “bandgaps” that filter out the damaging effects of shear waves traveling at the speed of sound.
    Composites with this design structure could be used for a variety of applications, including aerospace and automotive frames, body armor and athletic gear including football helmets.

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    BA77, think it will replace the flagellum as the icon for ID?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    “think it will replace the flagellum as the icon for ID?”

    Now that really would be blasphemy! 🙂

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Researchers discover first sensor of Earth’s magnetic field in an animal – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: Animals as diverse as migrating geese, sea turtles and wolves are known to navigate using the Earth’s magnetic field. But until now, no one has pinpointed quite how they do it.
    The sensor, found in worms called C. elegans, is a microscopic structure at the end of a neuron,,, The sensor looks like a nano-scale TV antenna, and the worms use it to navigate underground.,,,
    The researchers discovered that hungry worms in gelatin-filled tubes tend to move down, a strategy they might use when searching for food.
    When the researchers brought worms into the lab from other parts of the world, the worms didn’t all move down. Depending on where they were from—Hawaii, England or Australia, for example—they moved at a precise angle to the magnetic field that would have corresponded to down if they had been back home. For instance, Australian worms moved upward in tubes. The magnetic field’s orientation varies from spot to spot on Earth, and each worm’s magnetic field sensor system is finely tuned to its local environment, allowing it to tell up from down.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern –
    Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme – December 2013
    Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,.
    The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect (effect size. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies.

Leave a Reply