What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
$9 t-shirts today only view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
96 Comments
- CrossfireCurt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27The race is now on? are you serious? It's been on for the past 40 years.
- DeathJux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17All the world's top physicists and astronomers need to get together, drop acid, and record the conversation/debate that ensues. Give them all access to all the libraries of work in the field so they can reference things and I guarantee it would surpass "epic."
For example, the Nobel prize winning scientist that discovered the DNA double-helix was on lsd at the time. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10If you new anything about this you'd see this guy is right. They pulled "dark matter" out of their ass because w/o it their cosmological model is invalid.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Dark Matter is an inelegant solution at best. At worst, it's a theoretical construct that's been picked up by popular science and given a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
If we let first year calculus students come up with their own ***** solutions the way the wizards of dark matter are allowed to, we wouldn't be able to build the most basic machines in this country. - mikes1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It's made of lost socks.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Dark Matter is the result of flawed physics.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5LOL!!! Last I checked matter is not empty space. Dark matter is 100% theoretical. No proof it exists yet you seem to know what it is. For some reason I doubt you are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter - MrC539, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There is a theory (called MOND -- Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that has been considered by some scientists. The article actually alludes to it, if you read it.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Can you? You can theorize all you like but that is far from prooving a thing a reality.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3AN OBJECT AT REST CAN NOT BE STOPPED!!!!!
- Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Nibbler droppin kids into the intergalactic pool
- InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You may be right, its just a theory after all, It is extremely possible that we just don't understand all there is to about gravity yet, In fact ever since 'dark energy' came into the picture a lot of respected scientists are crying foul saying you can only invoke the 'magic box' solution so may times. That is you don't know why something happens but you can describe its effects pretty well (ie you don't know what is in the box or how it works but you can see the 'magic' it causes) Currently we have 3 magic boxes: gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. We know more about gravity but maybe not enough with dark energy and dark matter out there, not to mention what happens in singularities. And all this talk is just to keep people from seeing the giant elephant, THE magic box of magic boxes, that being Electro/Magnetism. You figure out why electrons are negative and protons are positive you can forget the Nobel Prize they will crown you a Physics God!
- bowe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh, but now its ON. I mean it's really ON. Hawking better prepare to get served.
- Evolutuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As funny as that sounds, it would be a great idea.
- muhadeeb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3most of all physists know that what exists in between an atom and the first electron shell is nothing, which is what dark matter is, end of story ( vacuum energy) . Sorta reminds me of a song called "Space Between"
it sucks - loganhid, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Dark Matter is a result of the heliocentric doctrine
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5They can say "We really don't know but according to the math..."
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Vacuum energy is also known as "zeropoint energy."
- archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Seems like every time we encounter a huge mystery that seems to make no sense in physics it is because our physics is wrong. Case in point: ether. Why does it seem like every single time this happens 99% of scientists blatantly refuse to believe that they need to adjust the laws themselves and instead make up a mystery substance?
Not that dark matter can't exist but shouldn't more people be taking the stance that it doesn't? - Matteos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"How can you kill that which has no life"
How can you sense that which does not interact. - warragul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dark matter is probably a condensate of Phlogiston.
It seems to have similar properties, viz: it
plugs a gap in our knowledge without
materially adding to it. - febryle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_%28His_Dark_Materials%29
Duh. - antron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Dark Matter is what gives a Sith his power. It surrounds us and penetrates us.
- Hayaemsay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Starship Fuel?
- stuma9000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Great article. The best I've read on dark-matter!
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Plus it's so dark it's blinding!
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed. Thankfully the article is MUCH better than what the story summary and title suggest. It leads you to believe it's the usual "amateur science" blurb somewhere with a spiced title to attract, but nothing could be more wrong. So thanks for the link, at least! ;-)
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dark Matter = Stupid thoughts. Think about it for a second. The most abundant thing in the universe is stupidity. Every time a person has a stupid thought, it translates into dark matter! I know this must be the answer because it sounds stupid!
- smek2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you knew a bit about science, especially cosmology, you'd know that a lot is, or at least was, pulled out "of asses". Until empirical evidence made it a fact.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dark Matter is a construct to add more Gravity to galaxies than is readily apparent.
As just a fan of physics, and not a person even employed in science, and since this is Digg -- let me throw out my own theory here (think about it for a second before you dismiss it).
I think that Dark Matter is either;
A) Gravity behaves more like pressure than a field, and that the mass of galaxies, has "more gravity" because more acceleration and more matter in an area, has to deal with the "geometry" of Gravity. Think of it this way -- gravity is a "flow" of space time through objects that are being created by folds in space/time. Just like a stream of water from a hose -- you feel some pressure when you hold your finger in the stream. If you try and block all the water coming out of the hose -- the pressure builds on your hand. Every part of your hand feels more pressure than when you were trying to push a little part of it. If this theory is true, there would be upper limits to the size of galaxies -- just like there seems to be upper limits to the size of stars (before you get supernovae or black holes). I've always felt that the fact that the moon creates a high tide on the oceans of earth on the side facing the moon, and the side away from the moon, argued for the idea of Gravity as a current flowing From Objects.
B) This other theory, which doesn't negate the idea of Gravity as a flow of space/time, is that there could be some "shadow" of the gravity of other dimensions. Imagine if the missing mass of this Universe (theorized to be 90% -- though, I don't know how, since we can't see all of this one), formed a higher "frequency" universe in the same place as our own. Or perhaps these are other Universes -- that have matter in similar 4 Coordinate space, but have a different address in the 9 other dimensions. Even though we don't interact with them in any apparent way -- there might be a gravity "bleed through" or shadow, from the presance of these objects. Perhaps there are places in our Universe, where matter is MORE likely to be, simply because there is more matter there on a different dimension. If this theory is true, than we would find some galaxies have LESS gravity than others that are apparently just as massive. If all galaxies are as massive as they appear -- then there would be no "shadow mass." - lead2thehead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is assuming of course that dark matter even exists. It is only a theory right now.
- KaneDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except by Chuck Norris.
- MistySteele, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It is pure evil, and it only grows stronger if you use evil to try and destroy it.
Do not fear the Mondoshawans when they return to help. - mcdaddy1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It fails to explain the bullet cluster. The modified gravity folk don't have a convincing explanation for this.
- thecolor11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To people prior to Copernicus, a geocentric view was based on empirical evidence. The sun, moon, and stars appear to revolve around the Earth. Only with more sophisticated measurements were people able to realize the difference. By then Aristotle's theories had become well-accepted. (Just imagine if one of today's physics theories had been accepted for such a long time.) Sure, by then the church had come to accept Aristotle too, and they were of course reluctant to change their minds. But so were academics.
- IanCal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What? 99% of all scientists know our theories are wrong. We know relativity breaks down, and that QM doesn't include gravity.
Aside from that, we have really good evidence showing that SOMETHING is there, and in large quantities, and we can't see it. We can see the gravitational effects, as you would know if you'd read the article. - puto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1MOND
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To answer his question, I'd point out that modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) explains nearly everything for which dark matter (last I checked) has been posited as a solution. It doesn't require changing the body of knowledge about physics, does provide a useful transition to the quantum scale and it (gasp) actually makes useful predictions about real world behaviors on the macro scale!
There's a saying; when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail. Dark matter is a bag of hammers, and just as dumb. - mcdaddy1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, dark matter is THE MOST ELEGANT solution to the problem.
This component explains the rotation curves of galaxies.
It provides the necessary component for the formation of galactic structures.
And so on.
Please, do some research before you talk. - senorcool, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Wimpzillas.
- mcdaddy1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anti-protons used to be theoretical. But now it seems natural.
The physics knowledge we've accrued have required numerous now forgotten null-experiments, showing that such and such particle doesn't exist.
It sucks that it has to be this way, but it's the only way to proceed. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buku mud butt. It's more to do with the cacadookie and the stanky stanky
- smek2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uh, what? The geocentric worldview was forced by church, the heliocentric emerged due to empirical evidence. in other words, because people actually researched things and had "thoughts". And what is the alternative to heliocentric anyway? You sound like there's plenty of other valid models. There aren't.
- InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Read about Dark Energy, its not as simple as it sounds, but I am not saying you are wrong, in fact you may be right.
- Evolutuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dark matter is just a word to tag "the unknown" .. scientists know theres something up with the universe, but they dont know what.
- AlwaysDiggsDown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They are unbelievably fleet-footed, I hear.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You should take your own advice before defending a kludge of a theory. For instance, dark matter theory has NOT led to any confirmed observation of galactic rotation, galactic disk stability, galactic clustering, large structures or gravitational lensing. It COMPLETELY fails to make any kind of prediction what-so-ever about stellar mass:light rations, transition radii, dwarf spheroidal galaxies and more. Predictions about mass:light surface brightness relationships, mass surface densities, disk halo conspiracy (not what it sounds like), rotational curvature and structure and oversized eliptical galaxies were all falsified. The only thing dark matter actually explains is cmb geometries. Even worse, dark matter doesn't predict any new phenomena the way just about every other good theory in physics has in the past.
- Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The first electron doesn't exist as a 'shell' as you seem to think, the graphical representation you have seen is a description of an area of high probability for the electron. The electron's probability is smeared both toward the atom and outward past the shell region. There is no empty space between the first electron shell region and the nucleus, there is a region of a decreased probability of the electron being there.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But since we can't get out there to see what is causing it they really can't say they know what it is. The universe is pretty big and no doubt is full of stuff we can't begin to imagine let alone understand. What they are doing borders on the religious.
- Tenetri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What is mind? No matter, what is matter... never mind?
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is