bornagainathiest Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Hello. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) instrument aboard the International Space Station has been taking data for over five years now. https://home.cern/about/experiments/ams Just under a week ago the results of this five year data collection run were announced at a conference in Switzerland. https://indico.cern.ch/event/592392/ This is a link to the PDF file that summarizes these results. https://indico.cern.ch/event/592392/attachments/1381599/2110332/AMS-CERN-Dec-2016.pdf While this is a highly technical body of information, I have gleaned some basic insights, which I will now share with you. It's not possible to cut-and-paste or copy the PDf images to this thread, so please scroll down to the following pages. Page 16, Positrons in the Galaxy. The expected flux of positrons (green curved line) is not matched by what the AMS actually detected (red dots with vertical error bars running thru them) . The energy of each positron detected runs from Low on the the left of the graph, to High, on the right. At 8 GeV (Giga electron Volts) the green line and the red dots begin to diverge. Page 17, Dark Matter. This divergence can be explained by particles of Dark Matter annihilating each other when they collide in deep space. This annihilation could create the excessive amount of positrons ( e+ ) detected by AMS. The shape of the predicted curve ( maroon color ) for this effect rises from left to right, peaks and then drops off sharply at 1 TeV (Tera electron Volts). Therefore, particles of Dark Matter seem to have an energy of around 1 TeV. Page 18, Physics Result 2 : The origin of the AMS positron spectrum. The AMS results are in excellent agreement with a Dark Matter model. The red dots of positron detections are superimposed on the maroon curve and show this agreement. (Alternative explanations of the positron excess are offered on pages 21, 22 and 23.) Page 37, Antiproton-to-proton ratio. The expected ratio of antiprotons to protons (red dots with vertical errors bars) detected by AMS should have fallen within the range covered by the light brown zone. But the light blue zone favored by a Dark Matter (or a new astrophysics) model is traced out by the AMS detection ratio. . . . So, two independent lines of evidence (positron energies and the antiproton/proton ratio) appear to be telling us that our theoretical models of Dark Matter are holding up well against the data. Thanks, BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted December 15, 2016 Moderator Share Posted December 15, 2016 Off topic slightly, but you are not going to believe this: Our pastor was preaching about Dark Matter last night, and how scientists had to have 'faith' it was there, and how it really was God holding the universe together. If I was superstitious I'd say that God was trying to tell me something considering the timing of the service last night and BAA posting now. Really interesting times we live in watching scientist start to confirm predictions from many years ago (Dark matter first postulated in 1930's?) The pastor said "If scientist can 'accept' dark matter, why can't they accept God, after all faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and you can't see dark matter" At this point I face palmed.. well metaphorically... I was in church. They fail to understand the difference between faith in God, and scientists confirming and thus accepting predictions that they can observe via various methods of testing. PS thanks for summarising BAA. Pretty awesome you can look at that technical data and understand what it means! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 15, 2016 Author Share Posted December 15, 2016 Off topic slightly, but you are not going to believe this: Our pastor was preaching about Dark Matter last night, and how scientists had to have 'faith' it was there, and how it really was God holding the universe together. If I was superstitious I'd say that God was trying to tell me something considering the timing of the service last night and BAA posting now. Really interesting times we live in watching scientist start to confirm predictions from many years ago (Dark matter first postulated in 1930's?) Right on the money, LF! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky The pastor said "If scientist can 'accept' dark matter, why can't they accept God, after all faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and you can't see dark matter" At this point I face palmed.. well metaphorically... I was in church. They fail to understand the difference between faith in God, and scientists confirming and thus accepting predictions that they can observe via various methods of testing. Well maybe you should show the good pastor page 8 of the AMS info. https://indico.cern....RN-Dec-2016.pdf Part of which I copy, below. Elementary Particles In Space There are hundreds of different kinds of charged elementary particles. Only four of them, electrons, protons, positrons and antiprotons, have an infinite lifetime, so they travel the cosmos forever. The scientists who had their dark matter prediction confirmed by the AMS data don't hold to the YEC timeframe of less than 10,000 years, for the age of the universe. Their calculations depend on the universe being 13.72 billion years old. Which means that for their prediction to be confirmed like this, the universe itself isn't declaring the glory of the Lord. Instead it's declaring that a YEC interpretation of scripture is flat-out wrong. Oh and btw, the same calculations used to make that confirmed prediction also depend on a fixed and unchanging speed of light. So running to AiG for a solution to the mismatch between scripture and observation will do him no good at all. Unless he wants to engage in Last Thursdayism or to invoke some kind of global scientific conspiracy. If he takes either of these options, then it's hopeless! PS thanks for summarising BAA. Pretty awesome you can look at that technical data and understand what it means! Thank you LF. I'm a well-read amateur astronomer. When things get too technical for me, I usually defer to the scientific expertise of these three members of Ex-C. Bhim. http://www.ex-christian.net/user/20773-bhim/#.WFMZl1OLSpo RogueScholar, http://www.ex-christian.net/user/21021-roguescholar/#.WFMZ61OLSpo The Redneck Professor. http://www.ex-christian.net/user/21179-theredneckprofessor/#.WFMaaFOLSpo Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted December 16, 2016 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2016 Unless he wants to engage in Last Thursdayism or to invoke some kind of global scientific conspiracy. If he takes either of these options, then it's hopeless! Hmm he's already saying the theory of evolution is a Marxist conspiracy to destroy God. I'm attempting to logic bomb him out of that one by pointing out some.... err issues with his supposed conspiracy. Lol I had to look up what Last Thursdayism was. Happily I don't have to worry about that, and a few years ago I already knocked flat earth into orbit. Gently of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts