EVE Search - What the matter with Dark Matter?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

What the matter with Dark Matter?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Steven Gerrard	Posted - 2006.04.11 20:56:00 - [1] Edited by: Steven Gerrard on 11/04/2006 20:58:27 Come on it eveywher makes up 98% of the universe but no one can prove it exists it just solves a lot of problems if its factored in. Sound like a scientists religion if you ask me. Its eveywhere but you cant prove the existance...well that sounds familar!
Chinsor	Posted - 2006.04.11 21:04:00 - [2] arent you a footballer?
Kailea Shandrasekkar	Posted - 2006.04.11 21:05:00 - [3] Name's inference: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation. Google ftw.
Mrs Miyagi	Posted - 2006.04.11 21:06:00 - [4] Originally by: Chinsor arent you a footballer? Aren't you a type of skin disease?
Steven Gerrard	Posted - 2006.04.11 21:06:00 - [5] Originally by: Chinsor arent you a footballer? Yes and I'm better than Frank Lampard b4 you ask
Hakera	Posted - 2006.04.11 21:13:00 - [6] as someone else said, its detected by inferance through galactic rotation or gravitational effects as they do not emit any electromagnetic radiation to be detected directy.
Corovus	Posted - 2006.04.11 21:55:00 - [7] A team of scientist in the US have just claimed that they think neutrinos have mass. This could account for much of the "missing" mass. Dark matter and dark energy are just patches to fill in the gaps in big bang theory.
Baldour Ngarr	Posted - 2006.04.11 22:15:00 - [8] It's more reasonable to assume the existence of large, cold (hence undetectable by radiation) objects of matter in the Universe, than it is to discard the entire current system of scientific laws and start all over. If anyone actually does present a new set of laws which explain all currently-observed phenomena at least as well as the presently accepted laws do, AND ALSO does away with the need to postulate Dark Matter, then such a set of laws is likely to become orthodox theory. But it hasn't happened yet. There are lots of theories which do away with the need to postulate Dark Matter, but none of them fulfil the first criterion (they are almost always put forward by pseudo-religious idiots with no, or next to no, scientific training, who have ulterior motives in trying to "prove science wrong"). They are therefore ignored. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Captin ShadowHawk	Posted - 2006.04.11 23:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr It's more reasonable to assume the existence of large, cold (hence undetectable by radiation) objects of matter in the Universe, than it is to discard the entire current system of scientific laws and start all over. If anyone actually does present a new set of laws which explain all currently-observed phenomena at least as well as the presently accepted laws do, AND ALSO does away with the need to postulate Dark Matter, then such a set of laws is likely to become orthodox theory. But it hasn't happened yet. There are lots of theories which do away with the need to postulate Dark Matter, but none of them fulfil the first criterion (they are almost always put forward by pseudo-religious idiots with no, or next to no, scientific training, who have ulterior motives in trying to "prove science wrong"). They are therefore ignored. I believe that in the 1600's the church had us believe the Sun revolved around the earth until through argument and experimentation Galileo was to prove them wrong. Could the same thing be happening with todays scientists? After all it would be easier to make a theory of dark matter & dark energy than go back to the drawing board of physics. Take a look at sub atomic physics where normal physics does not seem to apply as it does anywhere else in the universe. An example of this is at the sub atomic level the same photon of light can exits in two different places at the same time! Yet this can not be intergrated by any theory to apply to objects larger than the sub atomic. Explain that to me egg heads
Archilies	Posted - 2006.04.12 01:40:00 - [10] /me phones dark shikari on 999 Recruitment Thread
Kailea Shandrasekkar	Posted - 2006.04.12 02:30:00 - [11] Originally by: Captin ShadowHawk Could the same thing be happening with todays scientists? After all it would be easier to make a theory of dark matter & dark energy than go back to the drawing board of physics. Not really, Shadow. See, actualy Physics DO explain (and predicts) a lot; so it can't be totally wrong. Actually we're not even sure what the dark matter/energy is. Originally by: Captin ShadowHawk Take a look at sub atomic physics where normal physics does not seem to apply as it does anywhere else in the universe. An example of this is at the sub atomic level the same photon of light can exits in two different places at the same time! Yet this can not be intergrated by any theory to apply to objects larger than the sub atomic. Explain that to me egg heads There's already a few hundred specialist working on that; it's called Superunification. We're still toddling, tho.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.12 02:55:00 - [12] What do you mean, "no one can prove it exists"? I want some of what you're smoking. [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
kessah	Posted - 2006.04.12 03:06:00 - [13] i thought they had experiments underground in colorado proving hawkings theory. They have massive water tanks miles underground in colorado where there minimum interferance from cosmic and terestrial, in which extremly sensitive sensors pick them up. I swear to god i watched a documentary on this awhile back, seen hawking go down there in his wheels explaining it -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.eve-files.com/media/0604/Forever_pirate.wmv[/ur
Lead Betty	Posted - 2006.04.12 03:25:00 - [14] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/
Baldour Ngarr	Posted - 2006.04.12 11:35:00 - [15] Originally by: Captin ShadowHawk I believe that in the 1600's the church had us believe the Sun revolved around the earth until through argument and experimentation Galileo was to prove them wrong. Could the same thing be happening with todays scientists? Yes, it could. The difference is that science actually encourages people to try and prove current theories wrong; nobody is going to get threatened with torture or burnt at the stake for overturning the Theory of Relativity. The reason it's considered such a strong theory, is because it's resisted an entire century of top scientists trying to do exactly that. Quote: An example of this is at the sub atomic level the same photon of light can exits in two different places at the same time! Yet this can not be intergrated by any theory to apply to objects larger than the sub atomic. Explain that to me egg heads It's actually possible, in theory, for a macroscopic object to exist in two places at the same time. The laws of quantum mechanics, as you say, make this possible. How LIKELY is it? .... well, how likely is it that you can correctly predict the exact box score, in all details, of every single major-league baseball game for the whole of the next ten seasons. Not very; but you have to admit it's possible in theory. It just WILL NOT happen. I can't post the actual likelihood of, say, the Moon suddenly turning inside out or teleporting itself to the opposite side of its orbit; the forum only allows a 7,000 character post. The odds of such a thing happen are represented by a number considerably more than 7,000 digits long. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Kurren	Posted - 2006.04.12 13:39:00 - [16] Originally by: Dark Shikari What do you mean, "no one can prove it exists"? I want some of what you're smoking. Are you saying somebody can prove it (and you can prove it), or are you beginning an era of pointless questions? --- --- --- --- SobaKai.com
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.12 13:56:00 - [17] Originally by: Kurren Originally by: Dark Shikari What do you mean, "no one can prove it exists"? I want some of what you're smoking. Are you saying somebody can prove it (and you can prove it), or are you beginning an era of pointless questions? Well if nobody can prove it, what are thousands of scientists doing under the guise of proving the existance of dark matter? Do you know something they don't? [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Kurren	Posted - 2006.04.12 14:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Kurren Originally by: Dark Shikari What do you mean, "no one can prove it exists"? I want some of what you're smoking. Are you saying somebody can prove it (and you can prove it), or are you beginning an era of pointless questions? Well if nobody can prove it, what are thousands of scientists doing under the guise of proving the existance of dark matter? Do you know something they don't? Just wondering if you can fill me, and the rest of us, in on the knowledge that lets you presume the OP is "smoking something." As far as I've seen, nobody has proven that it exists and nobody has proven that it doesn't exist. I'm just wondering what information you have because you obviously have more than the OP due to your useless wise***s. --- --- --- --- SobaKai.com**
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.12 15:00:00 - [19] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 12/04/2006 15:00:06 Originally by: Kurren Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Kurren Originally by: Dark Shikari What do you mean, "no one can prove it exists"? I want some of what you're smoking. Are you saying somebody can prove it (and you can prove it), or are you beginning an era of pointless questions? Well if nobody can prove it, what are thousands of scientists doing under the guise of proving the existance of dark matter? Do you know something they don't? Just wondering if you can fill me, and the rest of us, in on the knowledge that lets you presume the OP is "smoking something." As far as I've seen, nobody has proven that it exists and nobody has proven that it doesn't exist. I'm just wondering what information you have because you obviously have more than the OP due to your useless wise****s. I never said I have* proved it. I said that the OP is wrong about how "nobody can prove it exists." Note the word can. [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
superscarface	Posted - 2006.04.12 16:57:00 - [20] Eh its easy to prove, just pick any galaxy and do the sums for conservation of angular momentum. I did it a few weeks ago, you should find that it is missing a large amount of mass.
Sorthus	Posted - 2006.04.12 17:46:00 - [21] A couple of points about dark matter. Its comparable to phlogiston and ether. Constructs to explain current processes. As to angular momentum, you are using current math to explain phenomena. The math is incomplete so a kludge is needed. Newtonian math explained observed phenoma until Einstein came along and extended it. It will happen again hint: gravitomagnetic experimental devices.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.12 17:49:00 - [22] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 12/04/2006 17:49:16 Originally by: Sorthus A couple of points about dark matter. Its comparable to phlogiston and ether. Constructs to explain current processes. As to angular momentum, you are using current math to explain phenomena. The math is incomplete so a kludge is needed. Newtonian math explained observed phenoma until Einstein came along and extended it. It will happen again hint: gravitomagnetic experimental devices. "Gravitomagnetic experimental devices"? So in other words you're a cook. A black hole is "dark matter." A brown dwarf is "dark matter." Are you saying these don't exist, even though we've found thousands? [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Sorthus	Posted - 2006.04.12 18:13:00 - [23] Last post, this is a no win. As to black holes and brown stars, both are observable by local orbital analysis. Apparently dark matter is only observable on the galactic scale and cannot be observed at the system level, bah. As to gravitomagnetic theory - its all mathematically defined and has been for many years - nothing new there. It has been observed and professionally published in the last three years. As to being a kook (spelling) at least I'm not the one who believes in something I can't see or detect in any way, kinda like the Easter Bunny - just cause there are colored eggs is not proof.
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.12 18:53:00 - [24] Originally by: kessah Edited by: kessah on 12/04/2006 03:06:02 i thought they had experiments underground in colorado trying to prove hawkings theory. They have massive water tanks miles underground in colorado where there minimum interferance from cosmic and terestrial, in which extremly sensitive sensors pick them up. I swear to god i watched a documentary on this awhile back, seen hawking go down there in his wheels explaining it Someone please correct me if I'm wrong; I believe the "underground water tank" is actually filled with D2O "Heavy Water", or T2O "Super Heavy Water". I should investigate this before posting albeit I'm not being grading nor giving a class on teh subject. :) The project consisted of extremely sensitive photo sensors which were to detect neutrino particles striking the Deutrium or Tritium. When these collisions occur there's a reaction which yields a tiny burst of light that the sensors would register. There had been a serious falting during one particular situation that involved "refilling" the tank. Due to the extreme potential for energy yield in Heavy and Super Heavy water it appeared that during the "refilling" there had been an unsuspecting reaction which detonated some of the atoms. This caused light which was beyond the photonic sensors operable limits and blew them all out!! The sensors are _not_ cheap and had cost ALOT of $$$ and set back the study some time... If I'm not mistaken I think the operation is called "Super Kamiokande" dector. *just googl'd it!! CLICKY D2O can be created quite easily and the best means is through Hydroelectric installations and are a staple for . T2O is very massive and difficult to produce. Sorry, I do not have the specifics handy. Tritium is a key ingredient in Neutron weapons. Then again, my post could be full of inacuracies. ;) Boobies:
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.12 18:59:00 - [25] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 12/04/2006 17:49:16 Originally by: Sorthus A couple of points about dark matter. Its comparable to phlogiston and ether. Constructs to explain current processes. As to angular momentum, you are using current math to explain phenomena. The math is incomplete so a kludge is needed. Newtonian math explained observed phenoma until Einstein came along and extended it. It will happen again hint: gravitomagnetic experimental devices. "Gravitomagnetic experimental devices"? So in other words you're a cook. A black hole is "dark matter." A brown dwarf is "dark matter." Are you saying these don't exist, even though we've found thousands? "Dark Matter" needs to be dropped from scientific vocabulary. It was intially used as an explanation due to the exclusion of "observable" mass. Society and it's book smarts have taken this -object- too far. "Balck Holes" and "Brown Dwarves" are seperate entities. They share as much commonality as I do with our "Sun". :P Boobies:
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.12 19:09:00 - [26] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 12/04/2006 19:13:44 Originally by: Sorthus As to gravitomagnetic theory - its all mathematically defined and has been for many years - nothing new there. It has been observed and professionally published in the last three years. You know what else is mathematically defined? Electric universe theory. Doesn't make it valid. I have not seen a single peer-reviewed article confirming the "gravitomagnetic" crackpot theory, ever, and thus I can safely ignore it. Originally by: Ominus Decre "Balck Holes" and "Brown Dwarves" are seperate entities. They share as much commonality as I do with our "Sun". :P Yes, but they both fall under the category of "dark matter" (matter which does not emit enough light to be detected by our telescopes). [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Baldour Ngarr	Posted - 2006.04.12 19:34:00 - [27] Originally by: Dark Shikari I said that the OP is wrong about how "nobody can prove it exists." Note the word can. I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong hair to split this time Nobody CAN prove it exists, at this present moment in time. That's what the OP said. This is not the same as claiming that nobody WILL EVER be able to prove it exists, which is the claim you appear to be rubbishing (and rightly so). ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Minsc	Posted - 2006.04.12 19:43:00 - [28] Edited by: Minsc on 12/04/2006 19:45:18 Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 12/04/2006 17:49:16 Originally by: Sorthus A couple of points about dark matter. Its comparable to phlogiston and ether. Constructs to explain current processes. As to angular momentum, you are using current math to explain phenomena. The math is incomplete so a kludge is needed. Newtonian math explained observed phenoma until Einstein came along and extended it. It will happen again hint: gravitomagnetic experimental devices. "Gravitomagnetic experimental devices"? So in other words you're a cook. A black hole is "dark matter." A brown dwarf is "dark matter." Are you saying these don't exist, even though we've found thousands? Found thousands? Every single black hole that has been found is pure speculation. There are other processes that can cause all of the observed phenominon that we've seen. The big bang theory has been failing to predict anything accurately for years. Black holes were invented to patch up the theory but failed so dark matter/energy, MACHOS, WIMPS and the like were similar attempts to patch up the theory.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.12 19:55:00 - [29] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 12/04/2006 19:58:48 Originally by: Minsc Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Sorthus A couple of points about dark matter. Its comparable to phlogiston and ether. Constructs to explain current processes. As to angular momentum, you are using current math to explain phenomena. The math is incomplete so a kludge is needed. Newtonian math explained observed phenoma until Einstein came along and extended it. It will happen again hint: gravitomagnetic experimental devices. "Gravitomagnetic experimental devices"? So in other words you're a cook. A black hole is "dark matter." A brown dwarf is "dark matter." Are you saying these don't exist, even though we've found thousands? Found thousands? Every single black hole that has been found is pure speculation. There are other processes that can cause all of the observed phenominon that we've seen. The big bang theory has been failing to predict anything accurately for years. Black holes were invented to patch up the theory but failed so dark matter/energy, MACHOS, WIMPS and the like were similar attempts to patch up the theory. Um... huh? What the heck are you smoking? "Black holes invented to patch up a theory"? Einstein predicted black holes. Are you now telling me that Big Bang Theory was a 19th century idea, proposed by Maxwell and Lorentz? And if they don't exist, I'd like you to give me a better explanation for the stars and clouds of gas that orbit as if there is an object exactly as dense as is predicted for black hole in the focus of their orbit. [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.12 20:03:00 - [30] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Ominus Decre "Balck Holes" and "Brown Dwarves" are seperate entities. They share as much commonality as I do with our "Sun". :P Yes, but they both fall under the category of "dark matter" (matter which does not emit enough light to be detected by our telescopes). Yet the five dollar bill safely tucked away into my wallet that's formfitted to my sitdown is _also_ undetectible by these telescopes you reference. Is Schrodinger (sp) haunting us as we share possibilities of a reality? And even then, basing "dark matter" upon a conclusive act such as "detection by a telescope" is laughible. Hawking's theory of black holes emitting radiation have been a strong feature in the designation of actually discovering a Black Hole. It is known as "Hawking Radiation." Next you'll be tying to convince us that coconuts are migratory... Boobies:

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.