Dark matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement

Since they didn't provide definitions and structure of the debate, I will do it instead. DEFINITIONS Dark matter: “Dark matter is a hypothetical substance that is believed by most astronomers to account for around five-sixths of the matter in the universe. ”[1] Black hole: “A black hole is a geometrically defined region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing - including particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light - can escape from inside it. ”[2] Science: “Scienceis a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. ”[3] Advancement: “An act of moving forward”[4], “improvement, growth, rize, etc. ”[5] Hindrance: “An impeding, stopping, preventing, or the like. ”[6] BOP Pro claims that dark matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement. BoP is on Pro to prove his claim. I, on the other hand, will refute his arguments to show that his claim is not true. I may also provide some direct arguments to show that dark matter or the discussion of dark matter is not a hindrance to scientific advancement. Please note that the topic of our discussion is only about whether dark matter is a hindrance or not. STRUCTURE Round 1:Acceptance, definitions, rules, introductory opening statements. Round 2-4: Arguments, rebuttals, defense of rebuttals, etc. Round 5: Closing arguments. No new arguments are allowed in round 5. INTRODUCTION From Pro’s opening statements we see that he means that the discussion of dark matter is a hindrance, not dark matter itself. There is confusion in Pro’s arguments in R1 about dark matter and black holes, because a hypothetical “very large and dense object in the middle of our galaxy” is not dark matter, but a (supermassive) black hole. Therefore, their explanations of this “very large and dense object” is unrelated to what they claim scientists say that there is “magical, exotic, invisible, undetectable, fairytale particles called dark matter to explain away the data”. So, it is important for Pro to make it clear if he is talking about dark matter, black holes or both. I will be refuting their arguments for dark matter, black holes or both, depending on what they will be arguing for. ON PRO’S OPENING STATEMENTS What Pro provided so far were bare assertions. Pro: “… astronomers predicted a very large and dense object in the middle of our galaxy, the Milky Way {1} -- since the countless solar systems are being attracted {2}. However, when we looked towards the center of the Milky Way. .. we saw nothing {3}. ” … How about this: consider that your models might be WRONG {4} and there are no MAGICAL particles {5}. ” The reason for {1} is {2}, that is by deduction. Let me give an example. Imagine you weigh a closed box and see that it is 100 grams. Another day you come and notice that the box is heavier than it was before. You put it on the scale again and see that it is 500 grams, but you can’t see what is inside (it is closed and you are not allowed or not able to open it). By logical deduction, you can easily conclude that something else of about 400 grams MUST be added to the box when you were away. Note that the fact that you cannot see the inside of the box doesn’t give you any reason to refute your conclusion obtained from measurement of the scale. Similarly, {3} doesn’t give us any reason for considering {4} or {5}. Firstly, they are not related, {3} is about a black hole and {4} & {5} are about dark matter which are different from each other as far as we know. [7] Secodly, even if we were talking about black holes one first have to show that {2} is wrong before asking to reconsider our conclusion {1}. In addition, {4} & {5} can be considered if Pro gives us a good reason and provides a solution(s) and explanation(s) for {2}. So, what is the scale in case of dark matter that showed us that there must be much more matter than what is observed? “Because scientists can't see dark matter directly, they have found other ways to investigate it. We can use indirect ways to study things, like looking at a shadow and making an educated guess about what's casting the shadow. One way scientists indirectly study dark matter is by using gravitational lensing. Light going through a gravitational lens is similar to light going through an optical lens: It gets bent. When light from distant stars passes through a galaxy or cluster, the gravity of the matter present in the galaxy or cluster causes the light to bend. As a result, the light looks like it is coming from somewhere else rather than from its actual origin. The amount of bending helps scientists learn about the dark matter present. Many NASA scientists use the Hubble Space Telescope to observe gravitational lensing. ” (Emphasis made)[8] CONCLUSION If Pro has any objections about definitions or structure, then we can discuss them under comments and reconsider them. If Pro agrees with definitions and structure given above, then he can directly post his arguments in R2. I wish Pro best of luck! SOURCES[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] . http://www.thesaurus.com... [6] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] . http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [8] . http://www.nasa.gov...