Hey if scientists won't believe in God's existence because he can't be seen, then how do they expect us to believe in this dark matter, which also can't be seen??? And then there is the even more mysterious dark energy!!!

MAYBE DARK MATTER + DARK ENERGY = GOD

[if so, then everybody can go home happy!]

[/silliness]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/21/dark.matter/index.html

Scientists: Dark matter exists

Quote :

"(SPACE.com) -- New observations of a great big cosmic collision provide the best evidence yet that invisible and mysterious dark matter really does exist. The collision, between two huge clusters of galaxies, is the "most energetic cosmic event, besides the Big Bang, that we know about," said Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The impact split normal matter and dark matter apart, rendering the dark matter's gravitational presence observable. Scientists announced the discovery today in a teleconference with reporters. The normal matter in the cosmos -- atoms that make up stars, planets, air and life -- accounts for only a small fraction of what must exist, based on the fact that without an additional source of gravity, galaxies would fly apart and galaxy clusters could not hold together as they do. Nobody knows where all that gravity comes from, so scientists say there must be some invisible stuff out there, which they call dark matter. Its presence is indirectly supported by many observations. Given what's known, this is the makeup of the universe: 5 percent normal matter 25 percent dark matter 70 percent dark energy Dark energy is an even more mysterious phenomenon, a force of some sort that beats out gravity and is causing the universe to expand at an ever-faster pace. Some theorists have suggested that rather than invoking dark matter, perhaps existing ideas about gravity might be wrong. Maybe gravity is stronger on intergalactic scales than what is predicted by Newton and Einstein. And all astronomers agree that dark matter is such an exotic idea as to border on the crazy. "A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona at Tucson, and leader of the study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists." Splitting matter Clowe and colleagues used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to study the galaxy cluster 1E0657-556, which contains a bullet-shaped cloud of superheated gas. X-rays show the shape was produced by cosmic winds created in a high-speed collision of two clusters of galaxies. Other telescopes were used to locate and quantify the mass in the clusters. They actually measured the effect of gravitational lensing, in which gravity from the clusters distorts light from thousands of background galaxies, as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. The dark matter is not seen, but its gravity has a predictable effect on the observations. The resulting blue color in a new image represents the gravity fields observed by noting how the light from each background galaxy is distorted. Here's what the image reveals: The hot gas -- normal matter -- was slowed by a drag force described as the cosmic equivalent of air resistance. But the dark matter was not slowed by this effect, presumably because it does not interact with normal matter, as theory had predicted. So the normal matter and dark matter became separated. "This proves in a simple and direct way that dark matter exists." Markevitch said in the teleconference. Other theories must cope The finding provides further evidence that standard Newtonian gravity, which keeps planets in orbit around the sun, is the glue that makes things stick on the largest scales, too. It is still possible there is some modification of gravity going on, but these findings make it less necessary to have such theories, said Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved with the study. "No matter what you do [in devising new theories] you're going to have to believe in dark matter." "We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter," Clowe said. "This is the first time we've had a direct detection of dark matter" in which you can't explain the results with any altered-gravity theory, he said. The findings will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters."

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2006 8:17:31 PM

Quote :

"scientists won't believe in God's existence because he can't be seen"

scientists worship satan, but you CANT SEE SATAN

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?

8/21/2006 8:21:36 PM

it's a scientifically observable fact that 90% of all dark energy comes from ahmadenijad's mouth and 78% of all dark matter comes from his ass.

8/21/2006 8:23:24 PM

btw....everyone knows God cant be INSIDE the universe.

8/21/2006 8:29:09 PM

He's inside all of us.

8/21/2006 8:31:02 PM

then I am God

8/21/2006 8:37:59 PM

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 8:40:10 PM

^^ you are joking, right?

if i cut up a table into a 1000 pieces and and a 1000 people eat a piece each, does everybody become a table?

8/21/2006 8:41:42 PM

I think he's inside your mom atm

8/21/2006 8:45:45 PM

^^ they become part of the table

and part of infinite power is still infinite power

8/21/2006 8:48:21 PM

does the pope shit in the woods?

8/21/2006 8:58:25 PM

WHAT DOES GOD NEED WITH A STARSHIP?

8/21/2006 9:33:29 PM

Quote :

" galaxies would fly apart and galaxy clusters could not hold together as they do. "

So where does magnetism fit in this equation?

8/21/2006 9:36:00 PM

Magnitism has a very short range compaired to gravity. So it has nothing to do with the way galaxies or clusters of galaxies stay together.

8/21/2006 9:54:33 PM

Quote :

"Hey if scientists won't believe in God's existence because he can't be seen, then how do they expect us to believe in this dark matter, which also can't be seen??? And then there is the even more mysterious dark energy!!!"

Because dark matter is an actual observable phenomenon? Can you really be this stupid?

Edit: Oh you have a silliness tag. nm

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 10:02:41 PM

How is it possible to see "clusters' of galaxies" when we struggle to determine how many fuckin planets

we have in our own cock sucking galaxy?!?! These fucking scientists I tell ya! talk about a waste of

finances and resources with this shit! Makes me wonder how they can distinguish a cluster of galaxies

from a conglomerate of shit in the cosmos.

Quote :

"Because dark matter is an actual observable phenomenon?"

No the fuck its not! Did you read the damn thing you colon bag?

Quote :

"The dark matter is not seen, but its gravity has a predictable effect on the observations. "

Its the gravity from what they "assume" is dark matter. This is actually a hole in their theory.

Quote :

"The impact split normal matter and dark matter apart, rendering the dark matter's gravitational presence observable."

Dark is the term im struggling with. If the matter isnt observable, then its anything but dark.

This is reminiscent of those Gullivers Travels scientists, with this fucking horse shit!

Quote :

"Magnitism has a very short range compaired to gravity. So it has nothing to do with the way galaxies or clusters of galaxies stay together."

From the acute information we've gathered about magnetism, true. Who's to say that there arn't some huge intergalactic scales controlling everything? If galaxies are growing, there has to be something pulling and pushing, again from the acute information we've gathered about science.



[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

8/22/2006 12:04:02 AM

YALL DONT KNOW HOW TO APPRECIATE SHIT

8/22/2006 12:47:27 AM

8/22/2006 12:48:10 AM

Do any of you guys know anything about the "ether"? I don't know how to spell it, but do y'all know what I'm talking about? The first few sentences in this thread made me think of the "ether."

[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 1:12 AM. Reason : Do you know about it being "real"?]

8/22/2006 1:09:39 AM

Nas knows about it

8/22/2006 1:14:49 AM

Ha ha this thread is really topped off by padowack either trolling, not knowing what the fuck he's talking about, or both.

8/22/2006 3:45:08 AM

^ yep, basically.

8/22/2006 8:47:52 AM

Quote :

"Do any of you guys know anything about the "ether"? I don't know how to spell it, but do y'all know what I'm talking about? The first few sentences in this thread made me think of the "ether.""

There was a theory that an 'ether'aether existed everywhere in space and it was what everything travelled through.

It was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 9:24 AM. Reason : *]

8/22/2006 9:19:52 AM

this is incredibly exciting

8/22/2006 10:42:04 AM

Quote :

"If the matter isnt observable, then its anything but dark."

That makes abso-fucking-lutely no sense. It's "dark" precisely because it cannot be directly observed. Its existence can be inferred by its gravitational effects upon the rest of the universe, but that still isn't a direct observation. We cannot actually see it or directly detect it, yet the things we see in the cosmos necessitate that it must be there somewhere. Hence it is called dark matter.

But then again, ChknMcFaggot had it right when he said that you don't know what you're talking about.

8/22/2006 11:26:19 AM

I prefer the modified newtonian theory to dark matter, personally.

8/22/2006 11:35:45 AM

Quote :

"We cannot actually see it or directly detect it, yet the things we see in the cosmos necessitate that it must be there somewhere. Hence it is called dark matter."

What the mother fuck okay okay, we cannot see it...but...wait a minute, why can't we fuckin see it? Its matter correct? We can jump the gun and say it exists due to its gravitational effects all around, but we just can't fuckin see it for some odd reason?!?! wow, and you people believe this shit.

Just like the whole "worm hole" shit. Who believes in that crap? How do we know that space and time can be bent? These guys spend their entire fucking lives, trapped off in some lab, losing their fucking minds inventing theories that can't be tested, about shit sooooo far away and you people buy it?!?!

If worms holes exists, then travel through the fuckin thing already.

umbrellaman & ChknMcFaggot I assume you guys are scientists?since yall just happen to know every fucking thing. You probably never even heard of "dark matter" until this thread. Scientist are wrong most of the time, until they correct themselves or someone else does. Its just a theory so it can't be proven correct, only refuted. Get off my scrotum.


[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2006 12:52:55 PM

you might as well go sit in a corner and masturbate onto a bible at this point, padoburyboy

8/22/2006 1:01:52 PM

1) Your brain perceives the effects of interactions of matter and energy (equatable) that appear in four dimensions.

2) The universe exists in at least 10 according to modern astrophysics.

3) You brain cannot perceive the effect of interactions of matter and energy that appear in the other 6 (or more).

8/22/2006 2:49:51 PM

Quote :

"I assume you guys are scientists?"

I can't speak for ChknMcFaggot, and I'm actually a laboratory technician. If you're asking if either of us is a credible expert on dark matter or astro-physics, then at least for me the answer is no. But you don't have to be a scientist to even begin to comprehend what the article is saying. Or at least do a google search on "dark matter."

Quote :

"since yall just happen to know every fucking thing."

Neither of us made such a bold claim, but keep throwing a temper tantrem and making yourself look dumb.

Quote :

"You probably never even heard of "dark matter" until this thread."

No really, I have. Stupendous job there of talking out of your ass yet again.

Quote :

"Scientist are wrong most of the time, until they correct themselves or someone else does."

Yes, it's called "the scientific method." I'm glad that the realization of the obvious makes you feel superior.

It may very well be that "dark matter" doesn't exist and that there's something else at play that hasn't been observed or measured yet, but until we have yet to come up with a more suitable explanation or a model that can explain what has currently been seen. Actually, that's probably wrong; there probably are other theories and I just don't know them off the top of my head. But this article states that the observations lend support to the theory surrounding dark matter.

Quote :

"Its just a theory so it can't be proven correct, only refuted."

No shit, Sherlock. Nothing in science is ever proven. Either something is disproven or it is failed to be disproven (but this is not necessarily the same as being proven, as contradictory as that may sound). Hypotheses are guesses about how a phenomenon operates, typically in the form of a mathematical expression. Experiments are then designed with the goal of disproving the hypothesis. If it is disproven, the hypothesis is shit and subsequently discarded. If it fails to be disproven, however, then it gains weight. At that point it becomes a theory. If the theory continues to fail to be disproven and manages to successfully explain all phenomena covered under it without any holes, it eventually becomes a scientific law.

I can't believe I even bothered typing all that out. This is the very very very basic way that the scientific method operates. You should have learned this in at least elementary school. But instead you throw out something as obvious as "it's just a theory so it can't be proven correct, only refuted" and use it as a cop-out because you see that you're being ganged up on for being an idiot.

Quote :

"Get off my scrotum."

I would, but your stupidity irks me to the point that I feel it necessary to drill all of this into your head.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 2:34 AM. Reason : blah]

8/23/2006 2:33:41 AM

For informed commentary the cosmologist Sean Carroll wrote a good blog post on this on his blog:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

It's a really clever observation.

8/23/2006 3:26:39 AM

wow, I deplore the sciences and even I have heard of Dark Matter

8/23/2006 6:40:03 AM

fuck dark matter theory... modified newtonian theory all the way

F=Ma^2/a0

where a0 = acceleration from a resting state to the speed of light in the age of the universe

Quote :

"A modified theory of gravity that incorporates quantum effects can explain a trio of puzzling astronomical observations – including the wayward motion of the Pioneer spacecraft in our solar system, new studies claim. The work appears to rule out the need to invoke dark matter or another alternative gravity theory called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). But other experts caution it has yet to pass the most crucial test – how to account for the afterglow of the big bang. Astronomers realised in the 1970s that the gravity of visible matter alone was not enough to prevent the fast-moving stars and gas in spiral galaxies from flying out into space. They attributed the extra pull to a mysterious substance called dark matter, which is now thought to outweigh normal matter in the universe by 6 to 1. But researchers still do not know what dark matter actually is, and some have come up with new theories of gravity to explain the galaxy observations. MOND, for example, holds that there are two forms of gravity. Above a certain acceleration, called a0, objects move according to the conventional form of gravity, whose effects weaken as two bodies move further apart in proportion to the square of distance. But below a0, objects are controlled by another type of gravity that fades more slowly, decreasing linearly with distance. But critics point out that MOND cannot explain the observed masses of clusters of galaxies without invoking dark matter, in the form of almost massless, known particles called neutrinos. Quantum fluctuations Now, Joel Brownstein and John Moffat, researchers at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, say another modified gravity theory can account for both galaxies and galaxy clusters. The theory, called scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG), adds quantum effects to Einstein's theory of general relativity. As in other branches of physics, the theory says that quantum fluctuations can affect the force felt between interacting objects. In this case, a hypothetical particle called a graviton – which mediates gravity – appears in large numbers out of the vacuum of space in regions crowded with massive objects such as stars. "It's as if gravity is stronger" near the centres of galaxies, Brownstein told New Scientist. "Then, at a certain distance, the stars become sparse, and the gravitons don't contribute that much." So at larger distances, gravity returns to the behaviour described by Newton. Pioneer 10 anomaly Brownstein and Moffat tested the theory in several ways. They estimated that their gravitational change occurs 46,000 light years out from the centre of a large galaxy and half that distance for a small galaxy. They applied these estimates to 101 observed galaxies, and found that both their theory and MOND could account for their rotations. "The point is that neither of the two theories had any dark matter in them," says Brownstein. But the theories did diverge when the pair tested them against observations of 106 galaxy clusters. MOND could not reproduce the observed cluster masses but STVG accounted for more than half. Furthermore, the team tested the theory against observations of NASA's 34-year-old Pioneer 10 spacecraft, which appears about 400,000 kilometres away from its expected location in the outer solar system. Brownstein says the theory fits observations of the so-called Pioneer anomaly (see New Scientist feature, 13 things that do not make sense), while MOND cannot address it because Pioneer's acceleration is above a0. Big bang's afterglow "At three different distance scales, we see answers that agree with experiment," says Brownstein. "They are claiming they can solve all the world's problems," agrees Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, US. But these experiments are "not what most cosmologists would first think of if they were going to test a new theory of gravity". He says any theory must also explain the development of large-scale structures in the universe, and most importantly, the afterglow of the big bang. Called the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, this afterglow was produced about 370,000 years after the big bang when the first atoms formed and has been studied in great detail by satellites, such as NASA's WMAP probe. "The dark matter model is not perfect, but it made a very specific prediction for the microwave background that seems to be coming true, and it fits galaxies and clusters and large-scale structure and gravitational lensing," Carroll told New Scientist. "Nobody would be happier than me if it turned out to be modified gravity rather than dark matter, but it's becoming harder and harder to go along with that possibility." Brownstein says the team is currently testing its theories with work on CMB studies."

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 8:19 AM. Reason : s]

8/23/2006 8:02:50 AM

All that typing and you said absolutely nothing. Except for the fact that you run around a laboratory and basically perform janitorial tasks. This was never about comprehending what the article was saying!

The article made no sense. Point blank. The word Dark means to reflect a small fraction of light. It's in reference to something that has a color. The other half was "Matter" a specific type of substance.

The wordage of this phenomenon does not make sense. Even in the article;

Quote :

"there must be some invisible stuff out there, which they call dark matter."

Which one is it, invisible stuff or dark matter? How can something be invisible and dark?!?! My beef was, most scientists come up with theories for the most pointless things like the Gullivers Travels scientists. How can any expect us to give credence when they can't even word the fuckin articles in a correct way?



[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ha haa]

8/23/2006 11:41:03 AM

this was in response to a quote that ^ erased:

something to the effect of "we haven't proved that gravity exists, think about that one for a sec.

blah blah. we could say we haven't PROVED anything exists. we certainly don't know the underlying mechanics of gravity.

(note: look up what "ie" stands for and what it means)


[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 11:43:53 AM

^^dude shut the fuck up. youre a fucking douche drip.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 11:44 AM. Reason : *]

8/23/2006 11:44:11 AM

^^wtf are you talking about. I never erased anything.

I don't think you can read very well, or atleast you're in the wrong thread.


[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 11:47:03 AM

wow. what a douchebag you are. why don't you edit your post again to not have such an asinine argument

8/23/2006 11:48:38 AM

You come in bashing me with statements I never said/typed. Im confused. What is it that you seek?

This guy needs a reality check. maybe he hasn't fully awaken and wiped the moring dew from

his virgin eyes...

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 12:02:53 PM

5^ that post makes absolutely no sense! like...what the hell is going on with it? who's saying what? I don't think you know how to use quotes you little fairy. And then you tell me to look up what ie stands for?!?! I never used that in this thread. wow. wtf are you talking about? totally made yourself look like an ass!

8/23/2006 12:11:40 PM

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 12:12:17 PM

Quote :

"All that typing and you said absolutely nothing."

Then you obviously didn't pay attention.

Quote :

"Except for the fact that you run around a laboratory and basically perform janitorial tasks."

Wrong again, dipshit. I'm not a simple janitor. I'm responsible for running not one, but TWO reactors that move flue gases through catalytic logs for the purposes of converting nitric oxides into nitrogen and water. I keep these reactors going simultaneously and gather data on the performance of the logs. Once again you play the assumption game and you lose.

Quote :

"This was never about comprehending what the article was saying!"

Then why have you miscomprehended what was said?

Quote :

"The article made no sense. Point blank. The word Dark means to reflect a small fraction of light. It's in reference to something that has a color."

The word "dark" isn't being used in the context that dark matter is somehow black in color or that it even has a perceivable color at all. The word is being used in the context that it does not seem to have any interaction with the EM spectrum at all. I suppose that does make it invisible, but since it neither reflects nor emits any EM radiation, it is effectively "dark." You're right in that it technically should be called "invisible matter," but after that all your bitching about using the word "dark" amounts to nothing but a pointless argument over semantics.

It's like how scientists have chosen to assign a "flavor" to quarks. Quarks don't actually have a property in the sense that they are sweet or sour, that's just the word that scientists used to distinguish between the different quantum numbers of these subatomic particles that describes their weak atomic forces.

Quote :

"How can any expect us to give credence when they can't even word the fuckin articles in a correct way?"

If your main problem lies with the choice of words that are used to explain a theory, then you have a very weak argument at best. This is simply how these scientists have chosen to express their theory. They explained what "dark" matter is and they've listed its properties, so what difference does it make what they call it as long as it can be referenced so that you can know what they're talking about? They could have called dark matter "peanut butter matter" for all anyone cares, but as long as they define what they mean then the name is still valid.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 12:19 PM. Reason : blah]

8/23/2006 12:18:29 PM

And evil spirits still cause colds.

8/23/2006 12:21:01 PM

Dude, all they did was assign a name to this invisible substance.

Dark Matter. Quit trying to break the name down like its Latin or something.

If you have such a problem with the name, then go petition the scientific community to change the name from dark matter to "invisible gravity". Otherwise, quit trying to argue such a stupid and idiotic point.

8/23/2006 12:25:49 PM

Look. I understand evil spirits. I don't understand germs. Germs are just some crazy explanation scientists came up with to deny the existence of god.

8/23/2006 12:40:56 PM

What im saying about "Dark Matter" is one of the main arguments that this theory faces today. The constant rebuttal from people who support this theory is

"Just because we do not know exactly what it is does not mean we cannot determine if something is there".

Thats my main point. The only thing they have in their favor is using gravity to observe something. This whole phenom could just be an anomaly in the universe. If we do not know what something is we cannot determine what it is that's there.

8/23/2006 12:55:35 PM

Quote :

"If we do not know what something is we cannot determine what it is that's there."

This is just stupid.

Ever see something at a distance, through fog, at dawn?

Do you doubt the existence of black holes, too?

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 1:04 PM. Reason : put it back, happy?]

8/23/2006 1:00:29 PM

I guess no one wants to discuss modified newtonian theory... :sad:

8/23/2006 1:00:48 PM

^^yet you miss my point.

why did you erase your part about the fog?

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 1:03:19 PM

how? explain your point in a way that doesn't suggest science should wait on the satisfaction of pedants.

you seem to have issues with induction. most people do.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ^^ you can volunteer all the information you'd like]

8/23/2006 1:03:32 PM