What is Intelligent Design?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

April 6, 2015

Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It is always good to go back to basics every once in a while. This piece is a short introduction to Intelligent Design for those reading about it or studying it.

Read More.

Comments

Kirk, Last night, I took the time to read John Baumgardner's rebuttal to your objections. Sigh. To your credit, you kept your criticism on a scientific and professional level and did not resort to sniping or denigration. For that, I think you deserve a lot of respect. Thank you. -QQuerius_{April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Querius
To which Paul Giem agreed. Apparently they want to see whether the data they collected could be salvaged.
Querius, it would really help the discussion if you would read the manuscripts as well as the linked posts. I know you claim that you have read the linked thread and comments but from what you post it appears that is not the case. For example Paul Giem is only peripherally associated with the RATE project as per hhis own admission that he made some advisory suggestions on the initial project. His acknowledging that the data is severely compromised due to the poor decision b the RATE project authors to not use accepted methodology to analyze the samples cannot be interpreted as the RATE project authors agreeing with Paul Giem and myself that the samples need to be reanalyzed properly.. That Baumgardner et. al have made no attempt to correct their errors over the last 13 years is a good indication that they aren't willing or have the fortitude to go back and reanalyze the samples. They have the data they want to tell the story they want to laypeople who don't understand the intricacies of AMS C14 analysis. How many more years should we wait for them to correct their errors? 5 years? 10 years? Or should we just conclude there is no interest on their part to readdress this issue out side of ad hominem comments directed at one of their critics? Querius
But look what you’re continuing to write about him and Baumgardner, and then in your post to me you fail to mention that they agreed with you in writing, even hinting that they had an ulterior motive. That’s not honest.
Querius, you would not make such error-filled posts if you would have actually read the suggested materials or even the author list on the RATE manuscripts. Paul Giem is not directly involved in the RATE project so his agreeing that the data need to be redone is no different than my suggestion they be reanalyzed......we are both outsiders making comments about the RATE project. Your assertion that 'they' (suggesting the RATE authors) have agreed with me (in writing no less) is simply untrue. Everything I wrote on the subject is honest and easily verifiable. You comments on the other hand....not so much.franklin_{April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

franklin, Yes, I read the posts and even quoted from one of them. Nevertheless you accuse me of ignoring what you presented to me, and not reading the previous posts or following the links, which I did.
I have always advocated that they go back and reanalyze the samples using proper methodology.
To which Paul Giem agreed. Apparently they want to see whether the data they collected could be salvaged. But look what you're continuing to write about him and Baumgardner, and then in your post to me you fail to mention that they agreed with you in writing, even hinting that they had an ulterior motive. That's not honest. -QQuerius_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Querius
Normally, it’s considered polite to include support for any accusations that you make regarding someone’s work because one’s opinion by itself doesn’t constitute irrefutable evidence.
Already have done that and I directed you to where you could find that information. It is not very polite to ignore what has been presented to you. Querius
I didn’t make any accusations against their lab work, so the fact that I haven’t met them or seen their controls in the lab has no bearing.
It is obvious from this comment that you haven't even read the manuscripts in question. Once you do so we can have a conversation. Querius
This seems to be a reasonable course of action from a position of calm reason. And perhaps you could have been a little more more honest with me in your description.
If you would have read the links and my previous comments, I have always advocated that they go back and reanalyze the samples using proper methodology. That in and of itself does not mean that I accept their current data set in any form given the fatal flaws in its collection and interpretation. If you preside over poorly designed data collection and someone points out, and rightly so in this case, that the data is garbage, based on extremely poor methodology, then what follows is the suggestion that they go back to the lab and do it right this time. That position, however, does not negate the simple fact that their current data set is nothing but junk given their lack of proper detail in analyzing the samples in the first place. That they have not done so, and apparently refuse to do so, speaks volumes for the motivation behind this farcical piece of work that is being passed off as good science. you may apologize for your mischaracterization of my honesty in this regard.franklin_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

franklin, Normally, it's considered polite to include support for any accusations that you make regarding someone's work because one's opinion by itself doesn't constitute irrefutable evidence. I didn't make any accusations against their lab work, so the fact that I haven't met them or seen their controls in the lab has no bearing. Going back into the voluminous threads, which I wasn't aware of, I found this by Paul Giem:
I am pleased to see that franklin is now recommending that the experiment should be redone. Previously it would seem that he would recommend ignoring the old data. This is progress.
This seems to be a reasonable course of action from a position of calm reason. And perhaps you could have been a little more more honest with me in your description. -QQuerius_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Querius
It’s perfectly fair to question anyone’s lab techniques and controls, but I don’t think that precludes any discussion with them. That’s pretty harsh in my opinion.
What's to discuss with them (Baumgardner et. al.) other than how they could ever think that not including sample process controls would withstand scrutiny or condemn their data as meaningless? Harsh it might be but shoddy work is shoddy work. If I were to present my employer with data and then told them I didn't bother with any controls and decided to use values controlling for background and other contamination that I had generated years prior I would be lucky to maintain my status of being employed with them. There is no excuse for conducting data collection in that fashion although I suspect an obvious reason (that hasn't been addressed at UD) for doing so. Querius
You also describe their work as “shoddy,” which seems to indicate that you’re already familiar enough with the specifics of their work to make such an accusation. Is that true?
you can read my comments upthread on the topic as well as the linked to previous thread where paul Giem and I discussed the subject. But, yes, I'm familiar enough with their work to label it shoddy. How about you, Querius, what familiarity do you have with their work? Also no need to include 'scare' quotes around the word shoddy.....it is what it is.franklin_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

franklin,
there really isn’t much to discuss with Giem and Baumgardner unless they go back to the lab and conduct the measurements with all the proper and essential controls in place.
It's perfectly fair to question anyone's lab techniques and controls, but I don't think that precludes any discussion with them. That's pretty harsh in my opinion. You also describe their work as "shoddy," which seems to indicate that you're already familiar enough with the specifics of their work to make such an accusation. Is that true? -QQuerius_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Kirk,
The YEC friend who edited my paper has forwarded Baumgardner my marked-up copy of his RATE contribution and has tried to facilitate a discussion with him, but to no avail.
I'm truly sorry to hear this.
If someone at UD wants to facilitate a discussion between Baumgardner and me, I would be open to this.
That would be wonderful! In science, we're supposed to be willing to be challenged and shot down, painful as that might be. As new things are discovered, sometimes theories can be exonerated (partly thinking of Lamarck and the inheritance of environmental adaptations), or new things discovered (thinking of the problem of biofilm in dating pre-Colombian artifacts). I appreciate your openness. -QQuerius_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Querius
I don’t think this is a matter of belief or anything to do with you personally, but rather questions about the methods and precautions used, which I think is fair.
there really isn't much to discuss with Giem and Baumgardner unless they go back to the lab and conduct the measurements with all the proper and essential controls in place. As it stands now the data represent only the shoddy work of the RATE project from which no conclusions can be drawn other than the clear-cut pattern of sample process contamination. The Baumgardner response to Dr. Bertsche is little more than a series of ad hominem attacks against Dr. Bertsche. Baumgardenr certainly provides nothing of substance to support his position.franklin_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Querius:
2. A discussion or debate with Diem or Baumgardner directly would be more productive. Have you discussed your objections with them?
I had a brief exchange with John Baumgardner a few years ago on TheologyWeb in response to a very preliminary version of my paper. The YEC friend who edited my paper has forwarded Baumgardner my marked-up copy of his RATE contribution and has tried to facilitate a discussion with him, but to no avail. If someone at UD wants to facilitate a discussion between Baumgardner and me, I would be open to this.kbertsche_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Kirk, Thanks for the additional explanation. 1. No, I'm just puzzled why you would cite an earlier experiment rather than one using current technology, which is presumably better, given the difficulty of measurement of such small amounts of C-14. Has such an experiment not been performed with AMS or is something wrong with AMS? 2. A discussion or debate with Diem or Baumgardner directly would be more productive. Have you discussed your objections with them? 3. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given how few C-14 atoms being measured. 4. Ouch. No, I don't think this is a matter of belief or anything to do with you personally, but rather questions about the methods and precautions used, which I think is fair. -QQuerius_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Piotr claimed,
CMB experiments (especially WMAP). Will you quibble about terminology? Carefully planned precision mesurements whose aim is to test cosmological hypotheses are as valuable a source of information as lab experiments.
Oh, I see. You're conflating actual experiments with theories based on observations. They're not the same thing, and it's more than just quibbling over terminology.
Dark matter was not expected theoretically; it was detected experimentally
Baloney! Vera Rubin is credited with pioneering work on angular momentum and galaxy rotation curves, although a Swiss-American Astronomer named Fritz Zwicky first noticed the “missing mass” in 1933. The missing mass does not emit light, so it was dubbed “dark matter” as a convenience to describe a hypothetical halo of matter around rotating galaxies. Incidentally, Dr. Rubin herself prefers an explanation that doesn't require a new substance on the grounds of parsimony. Some researchers have recently claimed that dark matter does emit a small amount of light, observable as an additional glow around galaxies while others speculate that dark matter are actually micro black holes (http://www.space.com/25691-dark-matter-black-hole-atoms.html). At any rate, your original objections were to my observation about the existence of scientific rationalization. You responded by providing an example where scientific rationalization did not occur. This was not my point, but I thought I'd have some fun and try to get you to think by pointing out that an experiment that failed to detect “luminiferous aether” might not not mean that there wasn't some other form of “aether” that was present. Dark matter, CMB radiation, and vacuum fluctuations/virtual particles (which do interact with light) came to mind. Coincidentally Vera Rubin switched her research to galaxy rotation problem precisely because her ideas about the clumping of galaxies were not well-received at that time, and no doubt she was concerned about her career being ruined as a result (being particularly vulnerable as a woman in what was considered a man's field). -QQuerius_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

Queries wrote:
First off, I can appreciate the extreme difficulty of detecting small amounts of C-14 and the potential for various sources of contamination as well as the problems with uniformitarian assumptions. But Grootes’ 1978 publication obviously was not a response to the RATE project, nor was Groote using AMS (with which you’re obviously familiar) for the paper that you cited. Creationist, Paul Giem also considers some of the contamination issues in a 2001 paper, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm. And of course, John Baumgardner addresses the possibility of contamination directly in 2007 here: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/ All this makes me feel like either I’m in a time warp or, more likely, there’s been considerable debate since then. So, I don’t understand why you cited Groote’s 1978 results rather than more recent results. I’m also not convinced that refrigerators (etc.), though notorious in many ways, are of necessity involved in the hypothesized contamination. Please understand that I’m not saying your hypothesis isn’t worthy of pursuit, I’m saying that it is, but I’d assume modern technology would be used to test it.
1. I quote Grootes' results because they offer definitive evidence that at least some coal exists which does NOT contain any unexplained radiocarbon excess. They fact that he did this many years ago, not in response to RATE claims, makes his evidence even stronger. Do you have a disagreement with his measurements? Do you think his results would be different if repeated today? 2. Yes, Paul Giem and John Baumgardner both tend to minimize the severity of process background. They both understand the theory of radiocarbon dating, but neither of them have actual hands-on experience in a radiocarbon lab. Take a careful look at Paul Giem's paper which you referenced. Under his heading "CONTAMINATION DURING SAMPLE PROCESSING EXPLAINS SOME, BUT PROBABLY NOT ALL, THE RESULTS" he wrote:
Contamination during sample processing is the most frequent explanation of carbon-14 in samples expected to be "dead" by long-age theories. There is good evidence that contamination during sample processing often occurs, and that some of the carbon-14 found in these samples may be accounted for on this basis. .... Van der Borg et al. (1997) noted graphite to have 0.04±0.02 pmc when measured without reprocessing, and 0.18 pmc when tested after recycling. Arnold et al. (1987) reported a graphite having 0.089±0.017 pmc without recycling, and 0.34±0.11 pmc after recycling ...
Giem has noted something quite important here, but I'm not sure that he or Baumgardner have appreciated its implications. The lower values from both Van der Borg and Arnold were of graphite which had been physically cleaned and measured directly, with no chemical processing. "Reprocessing" or "recycling" means that the graphite had been subjected to the normal chemical processing which wood and other samples normally see (conversion to CO2 or methane followed by reduction to graphite). After this processing the radiocarbon concentrations were higher by 0.14 and 0.25 pmc; this is due to the chemical processing. Sample processing typically adds a "process background" somewhere in this range, as explained in my paper. Note that most of the measurements that Giem and Baumgardner identify as anomalously high have been chemically processed and are in this same range of values (0.14-0.25 pmc). But per Van der Borg and Arnold this is not anomalous at all; it is exactly what one would expect from normal chemical pre-processing of radiocarbon samples. 3. Regarding contamination of refrigerators, grinders, and other lab equipment: I would have shared your skepticism before working in a radiocarbon lab myself. The theory of radiocarbon dating is pretty straightforward, but knowing the theory doesn't give a true appreciation for how important or unimportant the various details are. There's nothing like hands-on experience to give a proper appreciation of contamination and background issues. 4. Some of you may not want to believe what I say because I am not YEC. If so, I suggest that you get the opinion of Gerald Aardsma on some of these issues. So far as I know, he is the only YEC who has actual hands-on experience in a leading radiocarbon lab. I disagree with him on the age of the earth, but I think he has a very good hands-on appreciation of radiocarbon dating.kbertsche_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Querius
Oh really? And what experiment was that?
CMB experiments (especially WMAP). Will you quibble about terminology? Carefully planned precision mesurements whose aim is to test cosmological hypotheses are as valuable a source of information as lab experiments. What matters is that the presence of dark matter was detected in them. If you have a better explanation of the WMAP data, go ahead.
But you’re still missing my point, which was what if Michaelson Morley tried to detect dark matter with their famous experiment? Ok, I’ll give you a hint. They would have concluded that dark matter doesn’t exist.
Nonsense. Their experiment was not designed for such a purpose. If dark matter exists, it can't be detected by looking for the predicted effects of "the aether" (as the hypothetical medium of electromagnetic waves). Dark matter is not the aether and is not expected to slow down or accelerate light.Piotr_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Kirk, First off, I can appreciate the extreme difficulty of detecting small amounts of C-14 and the potential for various sources of contamination as well as the problems with uniformitarian assumptions. But Grootes' 1978 publication obviously was not a response to the RATE project, nor was Groote using AMS (with which you're obviously familiar) for the paper that you cited. Creationist, Paul Giem also considers some of the contamination issues in a 2001 paper, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm. And of course, John Baumgardner addresses the possibility of contamination directly in 2007 here: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/ All this makes me feel like either I'm in a time warp or, more likely, there's been considerable debate since then. So, I don't understand why you cited Groote's 1978 results rather than more recent results. I'm also not convinced that refrigerators (etc.), though notorious in many ways, are of necessity involved in the hypothesized contamination. Please understand that I'm not saying your hypothesis isn't worthy of pursuit, I'm saying that it is, but I'd assume modern technology would be used to test it. -QQuerius_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Andre
You are wrong not all sources are biased.
Says who? but If that is the case you will have no problem providing a source that you consider to be non-biased. Would you do that for us? thanks in advance!franklin_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Franklin You are wrong not all sources are biased.Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Franklin Just so we are on the same page I am not YEC. I hold that the universe is old. With that in mind YEC does makes me very uncomfortable but I know that the age of the universe can not be reliably measured same as materials on earth. Carbon dating is a contentious issue and I don't think anyone has a true handle or advantage over each other. Much more data is needed. If the universe is ever confirmed as really old then hey cool. If however it turns out to be young I'll be open to that outcome not attached to it. Make no mistake Dr Kirk's could be 100% right but if you ask him I'm sure he will confess that not with any certainty. Science does not have any certainty it is always open for correction and improvement.Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Andre
And it is exactly why the other 2 agenda driven sources can also be dismissed. I’m a christian and yet you will never see me cite anything from a christian source because I know it’s biased.
Using, what seems to be, your standards for credibility you (nor anyone else) will ever be able to cite anything from anywhere since all sources can be considered biased in one fashion or another. If what I stated is false provide a source that you believe to be a credible source of information and we can see if it has any bias that can be attributed to it. give us your grade A number 1 source.franklin_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

Franklin I did not accept Christ as valid because the bible told me so. There are numerous citations of Christ the bi le being one source but I know the Bible has a form of bias so what to do? There are many citations of Christ outside the bible. His enemies who unlike materialists don't deny him and of course those impartial to him. The best advice Darwin has ever given us is this; "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species Again, no matter how true a conclusion is if the source is suspect it can be dismissed.Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

And it is exactly why the other 2 agenda driven sources can also be dismissed. I'm a christian and yet you will never see me cite anything from a christian source because I know it's biased.Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

It seemed to me that you present a reasonable hypothesis, that the RATE samples were all contaminated. That’s fine, but to test your hypothesis, I would think it would be reasonable that you repeat some of all of the RATE tests with what you would consider to be uncontaminated samples, demonstrating with your results that there’s a high likelihood that C-14 was introduced by one of the mechanisms you described.
As mentioned in my paper, this has already been done by Grootes (my reference 27?). Using specialized techniques, he pushed the background back to 75,000 years and measured anthracite coal at background (i.e. no measurable radiocarbon).kbertsche_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Andre
There is no cure for stupidity.
I know that is why I feel for you with every post you make....but I still give you a chance. Andre
Even if Dr Kirk posted bona Vida evidence of God on TO it would be dismissed because the cite TO is agenda driven.
Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! the other two websites HOSTING Dr. Kirk's article are agenda driven. are we to also dismiss Dr. Kirk's work simply because he has had his article HOSTED on three different websites that are all agenda driven? Andre
If it was a legitimate scientific source with reliable information why does it have a page with tips on how to debate creationists?
Why not? Creationists are always harping on scientists to debate them so why should others not share their experience and give advice? Do you think that creationists don't get advice on how to debate with scientists? Andre
The source of your cite is the problem do you get it?
The source of my cite is Dr. Kirk himself. Don't you get it?franklin_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Franklin There is no cure for stupidity. Even if Dr Kirk posted bona Vida evidence of God on TO it would be dismissed because the cite TO is agenda driven. If it was a legitimate scientific source with reliable information why does it have a page with tips on how to debate creationists? Do you get it? I suppose not because even after Dr Kirk agreed with me you're still harping.... It came from the horse's mouth so to speak and yet.... Here is Franklin trying to defend the indefensible! The source of your cite is the problem do you get it?Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Andre
This is not about Dr Kirk’s work its is about your source Talk Origins not being a reliable source and like wikipedia can not be trusted for citation.
this is all about Dr. Kirk's research, and its credibility, as it pertains to this discussion! Unless you are willing to commit to Dr. Kirk's work being bias and easily dismissed simply because of where it has been HOSTED your rhetoric is on empty. Are you also saying that Dr. Kirk's work cannot be trusted as well? On what bases do you make this conclusion? If you don't consider Dr. Kirk's work to be biased and untrustworthy then the To site has provided reliable information despite your biases against the TO website HOSTING his article. an apology would be welcome anytime.franklin_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Franklin This is not about Dr Kirk's work its is about your source Talk Origins not being a reliable source and like wikipedia can not be trusted for citation. The source is suspect so the conclusion must be treated so even if it may be true. And a tjop is a tjop. .....Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Andre
If a source that is biased is used for a citation. It can be dismissed.
Andre, the source for informational purposes that I linked to was Dr. Kirk Bertsche that was HOSTED on a site you consider biased. is it your position that if I had linked to the either of the two other sites that HOSTED Kirk Bertsche article it then would have been acceptable to you? Of course you realize that the other two sites are arguably biased as well. Andre
Do you know how things work?,
Yes, Andre, I know how things work. I have published several articles in journals that are highly respected in their field. How about you? then again this is a blog where it is more of a conversational/discussion venue in case you didn't realize this aspect of the exchange. Andre
Your source is not neutral therefore even if its conclusions maybe correct it can still be dismissed.
So you are dismissing Dr. Kirk Bertsche work/article out of hand simply because it has been HOSTED on a website you consider biased. That is sad. Andre
I thought you knew how logic, reasoning, philosophy and science works.
I suggest you work on the reasoning part a bit more. Andre
Dr kirk agreed with me the source is biased. It is on record chump.,
Yet his work is hosted on that website. does that, in your eyes, condemn his work as being biased? I like it when you feel the uncontrollable need that results in you resorting to calling folks names....it is telling! time for a rethink and please do better.franklin_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Franklin If a source that is biased is used for a citation. It can be dismissed. Do you know how things work? Even if a conclusion is correct but the premises are not the argument is invalid. Your source is not neutral therefore even if its conclusions maybe correct it can still be dismissed. I thought you knew how logic, reasoning, philosophy and science works. Clearly not. Dr kirk agreed with me the source is biased. It is on record chump.Andre_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Kirk, I read your carefully written paper, which was indeed devoid of all ad hominems as you promised, the half-life of which is apparently only a few days! ;-) It seemed to me that you present a reasonable hypothesis, that the RATE samples were all contaminated. That's fine, but to test your hypothesis, I would think it would be reasonable that you repeat some of all of the RATE tests with what you would consider to be uncontaminated samples, demonstrating with your results that there's a high likelihood that C-14 was introduced by one of the mechanisms you described. Simply obtaining certain results doesn't demonstrate that the samples were necessarily contaminated. -QQuerius_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Piotr, Yes, I'm familiar with Michaelson Morley.
Dark matter was not expected theoretically; it was detected experimentally
Oh really? And what experiment was that? But you're still missing my point, which was what if Michaelson Morley tried to detect dark matter with their famous experiment? Ok, I'll give you a hint. They would have concluded that dark matter doesn't exist. -QQuerius_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply