First dark matter galaxy discovered

reply to post by sirnex


They are realted its jus that they BOTH make up the same thing

you need the energy at a level to create matter thus getting mass.. energy has no mass..

get what i mean?

reply to post by sirnex


energy and mass are not separate, they are the same. the equation is used to determine potential energy of a mass. other than that simple explanation i do not understand what you are trying to say

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex

 

They are realted its jus that they BOTH make up the same thing

you need the energy at a level to create matter thus getting mass.. energy has no mass..

get what i mean?

No, I don't get what you mean because you are not citing sources. Please cite sources when you talk to me. I'm done with you.

Originally posted by oatie
reply to post by sirnex

 

energy and mass are not separate, they are the same. the equation is used to determine potential energy of a mass. other than that simple explanation i do not understand what you are trying to say

Well, from what I've posted it doesn't readily appear to state that at all. It really does appear to be what I've thought this whole time. Energy is a property or function of matter. If you can cite any source to the contrary rather than make an empty claim about it, that would be super and much appreciated.

reply to post by sirnex


you want me to state the obvious?

holy crap...

www.kidskonnect.com...

here once again i have to post you 8th grade information

ENJOY

[edit on 28-12-2009 by 13579]

[edit on 28-12-2009 by 13579]

if are galaxy and that one crash holy # thats like biger then a supernova exploision or somethin huh?

reply to post by Maslo


Yeah, something that looks like that!
That's essentially what I was referring to.
Shazam!
Nice find.

There are a lot of threads claiming dark matter has been discovered and this is much like the rest, generally inconclusive as usual. This is one of those stories that makes the claims that Science is a faith in itself somewhat plausible.

edit: It say's they see things acting as they shouldn't, they move so fast they should fly apart. That is nothing but faith. If they were observing what was in front of them, there would be no "Should" just observation. They are looking at something light years away that they don't understand, and it's probably doing something observably normal, only their preconceived notions make them think what is occuring is an anomaly, and they have all the answers.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Novise]

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Novise]

reply to post by 13579


Don't really understand what your alluding to from that link princess, but it doesn't disagree with anything I've just stated, unless you have a specific page and quote to give me. OK, cupcake, let's focus on explicit quotations rather than mindless idiotic retard-ism's.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I think the New Scientist had a new article on something called a neutralino, which might explain dark matter.

neutralino

[edit on 28-12-2009 by A52FWY]

Originally posted by tinarg
if are galaxy and that one crash holy # thats like biger then a supernova exploision or somethin huh?

What?

Second line to emphasize: "What?!"

This is an expected discovery for many Physicists, who are expecting the universe to be full of dark-matter galaxies, and even in our local neighbourhood & local cluster there probably should be more galaxies than we have observed - this extra mass of galaxies being comprised of dark-matter.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by john124]

Ya'll are 4 years late >.>

www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk...

Originally posted by john124
This is an expected discovery for many Physicists, who are expecting the universe to be full of dark-matter galaxies, and even in our local neighbourhood & local cluster there probably should be more galaxies than we have observed - this extra mass of galaxies being comprised of dark-matter.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by john124]

OK, but this isn't an actual 'discovery'. I've already posted that and another poster already posted an article that still implies that this isn't really 'real'. Claiming rotation and proving rotation are very distinct separate things. It's not that hard of a concept, let's not lose focus on reality here, please.

There is alot of good and bad science on here.

As far as dark matter goes, it is basically a theory to explain what we dont know. (i know... duh right?) we see lensing of light in images. We can only account for about 5% of the matter in space. Dark matter is a convenient explanation that doesnt screw with what we already know to entirely bad.

I personally dont agree with it, not so much a science thing, more of an oppinion. It cant be proven or disproven as of now, and it really doesnt hurt so long as we dont blindly accept it.

The problem arises when scientists take the theory and run with it instead of questioning it. I have always been of the idea tha every possible measure should be taken to disprove scientific theories. When you try to disprove something in every way possible and cannot, you will find supporting evidence along the way, and thus you can then say with a fair degree of certainty that the theory will stand up to opposition.

Einstein told us that E=mC^2, and many people can recite that equation, not knowing that not only was this not the original equation, but also not knowing how to correctly describe the relationship that this explains between matter and energy.

I am not saying that i have the understanding that he, or Lorentz or others do, i am really just a layman, but i do grasp the concept of exchange betwen energy and matter (at least i think i do lol).

Energy and matter are the same really as watervapor and ice. Matter and energy are the same thing in different states. Matter is more of a potential energy, while energy is more kinetic i guess.

That is, the amount of energy required to keep the bits together in matter can be manifested in a kinetic state, thus a paperclip has enough energy stored to power manhatten for a day.

The problem is that we dont really understand these basic forces. Well we understand what they do, just not why. For instance, what is the origin for the weak and strong nuclear forces? What is gravity? We know what these forces do, but not why. With the understanding of this coorelation we have developed such awesomly powerful things as the H-bomb, the A-bomb, The nuclear bomb.... wait... that doesnt sound good at all lol...

Humans are likely not ready to understand these functions of matter/energy, because we would likely destroy ourselves. If a paperclip can power manhatten, imagine what a 50lb steel ball could do? or even say the steel in an average building? we are talking enough energies to be potentially globally catastrophic.

When scientists and the like start popping off about dark energy, i really get the feeling that they are trying to sound smarter than they are. no one wants to hear the experts say they dont nkow, especially the experts themselves, and when a piece of the puzzle is missing, there are never any shortage of filler theories waiting to be tested.

I have a feeling (and its just a feeling, i am not trying to assert any knowledge or the like) that this theory will be eventually filed with the likes of aether.

My personal idea is that scientists are forgetting that light has mass. it is such a small amount that we consider it negligable, but when you add up all the negligible in the universe, you get A LOT. Not to mention i also believe that the very basic idea of the universe that scientists use is conceptually wrong. but hey, they are the experts, right?

reply to post by wx4caster

I personally dont agree with it, not so much a science thing, more of an oppinion. It cant be proven or disproven as of now, and it really doesnt hurt so long as we dont blindly accept it.

The screwed up thing is that we can't prove/disprove it is because "conveniently" dark matter doesn't interact with matter at all on any level. How convenient is that?!

Energy and matter are the same really as watervapor and ice. Matter and energy are the same thing in different states. Matter is more of a potential energy, while energy is more kinetic i guess

I disagree and so does apparently physics itself as I posted on page two of this thread. Energy is a property/function of matter. Not something that is interchangeable with matter as if it were a separate thing. There is no "different states", just matter exerting 'force' on other matter.

When scientists and the like start popping off about dark energy, i really get the feeling that they are trying to sound smarter than they are. no one wants to hear the experts say they dont nkow, especially the experts themselves, and when a piece of the puzzle is missing, there are never any shortage of filler theories waiting to be tested.

I don't know about you, but I do want to hear "I don't know." What I don't want to see is a plethora of pompous buffoons claiming to know everything there is to know about reality and then refusing to back up their so called "truths".

I have a feeling (and its just a feeling, i am not trying to assert any knowledge or the like) that this theory will be eventually filed with the likes of aether.

My personal idea is that scientists are forgetting that light has mass. it is such a small amount that we consider it negligable, but when you add up all the negligible in the universe, you get A LOT. Not to mention i also believe that the very basic idea of the universe that scientists use is conceptually wrong. but hey, they are the experts, right?

I don't personally know what to make of the Aether myself, but I'm of the opinion that reality exists as a series of different states similar to how matter exists at different measurable states. I tried to flesh out this theory, but apparently I'm too "closed minded" irregardless of that fact. Too many worthless tools on ATS if you ask me. Tired of intellectual laziness.

Originally posted by 13579
blog.ted.com...

Enjoy

Hope it helps

From that I read this:

Comprising 96% of the universe between them, they can't be directly measured, but their influence is immense.

Not directly aimed at *you* 13579. But, I have read on this board and in other places that (to most scientists), if it isn't directly measurable, then it 'doesn't exist'. Usually spewed when in the midst of some kind of religious debate to 'explain' away the notion of god. I'm not religious, so I tend to agree. My thought is, this whole dark matter thing sounds like a serious load. Talk about making it up to cover your ass. Which lead me to this:

Originally posted by Novise
There are a lot of threads claiming dark matter has been discovered and this is much like the rest, generally inconclusive as usual. This is one of those stories that makes the claims that Science is a faith in itself somewhat plausible.

edit: It say's they see things acting as they shouldn't, they move so fast they should fly apart. That is nothing but faith. If they were observing what was in front of them, there would be no "Should" just observation. They are looking at something light years away that they don't understand, and it's probably doing something observably normal, only their preconceived notions make them think what is occuring is an anomaly, and they have all the answers.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I find there to be far too much assumption and hand-waiving in mainstream science. A great deal of: "Well just because we haven't proved it yet, doesn't mean that it's not real." Wow. Can anyone see the religious correlation there, or am I just imagining things? The irony in articles like this is staggering.

Chrono

Earlier in the thread... are you infants seriously arguing about E=mc2? You are kidding me right?.... I hope you are all aware of the fundamental principle...

reply to post by sirnex


no no... energy and matter are interchangeable. each particle of matter is really just a state of energy.

but the rest of your post i agree with...


and to paradox...

i dont see any infants here, but you havent shown any reason as to why i should consider you to have any insight on the subject. if you think we are wrong then i say enlighten us.

the problem with this theory is that astrophysicists exclude electrical forces in the universe, and with this force included you don't need any invisible matter or black holes that tear logic apart to make the model function...

just like the magnetic dust cloud that 'shouldn't be there' (by their faulty theorems) that I mentioned before...