I haven't got one!!!!,,,,,, yet.

But "dark matter" is a different term to "matter", and is not being used in different fields in "different and sometimes incompatible ways".

I remember David Bohm articulating that it was exceedingly difficult to express his ideas on quantum mechanics as western language was so heavily polluted with biases that any description he put forth would fall short of its intent and provide gaping holes for criticism.

He therefore spent an entire 3/4 of his book to reconstructing an effective new language so that a solid footing could be achieved before delving into his theory. In a similar way, Newton could not mathematically express his ideas coherently so he had to invent calculus to achieve it. I get therefore in principle where this philosophical argument is going, but it appears extreme. Without having to reconstruct our language so we can achieve consensus at some point, any further debate is going to be difficult. :-))

Amendment: Typo as invest = invent

But "dark matter" is a different term to "matter" your term is made up of 2 words
"dark" and "matter"

the term matter ends in nonsense
so then does the combined word
"dark matter"
"dark matter" is a nonsense term

ok, lets forget the language, what is the correct interpretation of the observations that have coined the offensive term?

What about "occult matter"? Or let's just call it "Bob".

He therefore spent an entire 3/4 of his book to reconstructing an effective new language so that a solid footing could be achieved before delving into his theory. In a similar way, Newton could not mathematically express his ideas coherently so he had to invest calculus to achieve it. I get therefore in principle where this philosophical argument is going, but it appears extreme. Without having to reconstruct our language so we can achieve consensus at some point, any further debate is going to be difficult. :-)) bravo
congratulations someone who knows his stuff
a real thinker

ok, lets forget the language, what is the correct interpretation of the observations that have coined the offensive term?
all observations are theory laden
ie made up of words
interpretation is again in words
and your words end in nonsense

gzasky, please drop the black/white fallacy crap. You speak of nonsense? Most of it is coming from you. If you'd like to discuss the limitations of our understanding of DM based on the limitations of our understanding of matter, go for it. But declaring everything for which we haven;t quite reached a perfect definition of "nonsense" all you do is show what a pseudo-intellectual you are.

But declaring everything for which we haven;t quite reached a perfect definition of "nonsense" all you do is show what a pseudo-intellectual you are. if your words lead to contradictions
then you talk nonsense
'matter'
'the scientific method'
'science'
all nonsense terms

I assume they were just initially concentrating on additions that weren't considered in Einstein's time, but if we continue to reduce the equation on this basis, then why can't we separate the observable from the unobservable. Any further simplification would be good. It's easy in hindsight to say why hasn't this been attempted before....but, why hasn't this been attempted before? :-))

So did gzasky supply us with an alternative non-nonsense language?

The question I was tentatively opening on gzasky's thread regarded the possibility of the disparity in galactic rotations being a product of the individual particles present within any accreted matter having it's individual vector altered by it's accretion? ie, is accretion a sum of vectors multiplied by the original vectors(forgive me if the vector term isn't appropriate).

your term is made up of 2 words
"dark" and "matter" Or it could be a single noun phrase - "dark matter".

You gotta laugh :-))

It was only when I read the opening post that I even considered an Einstein equation specifically tailored to distinguish between observable and unobservable forms of energy-momentum.

How do you arrive at those conclusions.
What would you like to call matter?
Perhaps "solidified energy?

What would you like to call "the scientific method"
Perhaps "process of logical deduction"?

What would you like to call DM?
Perhaps "unobserved solidified energy?"


Not really sure what you are trying to prove, but as far as I'm concerned you can call them whatever you like...The important thing is explaining the physical reality of them and the Universe around us, based on our observations.
You seem to me to miss the "spirit" of science altogether and appear to have some sort of underlying agenda.