First dark matter galaxy discovered

reply to post by 13579


Don't you ever dare misquote one of my post's. Re-quote that in it's fkcing correct context before I take anything you've just said in any form of seriousness.

reply to post by sirnex


maybe because you keep asking stupid questions?

did you know that if i type a way that is missing letter you can still in fact read it?

Hlleo i cnat tlak lkie tihs bceasue i ym bianr catn wrok otu teh ovibouse

and just so im still on topic if you cant understand how engery relates to matter and matter relates to engery

you really should just listen and not keep asking questions then get offended when people are trying to help you...

I have done my best to help i posted a TED talk vid and i also tired to help with comments.. if you need articals or proof i suggest you go read a book and dont be lazy and let other people do the work for you..

just wanted to add that for the mods and to be on topic.

"off topic" people said jupiter had turned into a sun.. yet had no clue that jupiter was a gas giant and can never become a sun... EVER as it lacks the mass and "engegy" to do so.. yet argued till they was blue in the fact that it had..

Deny ignorace? i think the new motto is Deny FACTS. more so when dealing with science


?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by 13579]

reply to post by sirnex


It was just not me who corrected you.

3 other postered in fact did on the subject you was asking.. just because you dont get it do not think people are putting you down. I think you think being right all the time is somehow correct?

I dont know how to type "the way you find pleasing to your eye"

yet i understand physics better than you?

and to equate intelligence with how i type is proven to be a fallacy

reply to post by sirnex

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sirnex

 

Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin - E=mc2

Conversion from m to E occurs for example in atomic explosions, conversion from E to m occurs in particle accelerators.

reply to post by sirnex

You might not have a clue, but it's called force carriers, which are again other bits of matter interacting against matter.

FORCE

notice that word? = ENGERY

reply to post by 13579


I think E=MC^2 says energy can be converted from matter to energy in fission and that energy can be converted to matter through fusion, as our sun does.

Particle accelerators were called atom smashers at one time so a particle accelerator is not necessarily a fusion device like the quote implies, but it seems to be a fission device.

reply to post by 13579

maybe because you keep asking stupid questions?

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people who can't answer questions.

did you know that if i type a way that is missing letter you can still in fact read it?

Hlleo i cnat tlak lkie tihs bceasue i ym bianr catn wrok otu teh ovibouse

Condescending tool.

you really should just listen and not keep asking questions then get offended when people are trying to help you...

Help huh? Did I not ask a specific request? Oh gee wow, looky, I did!

"What I'm looking for is any scientific article about energy itself that is not a property/function of matter doing work upon other matter."

if you need articals or proof i suggest you go read a book and dont be lazy and let other people do the work for you..

Now your just being a blatant idiot. Are you purposefully ignoring this post in order to call me lazy? If you read that post *doubt you will*, you will quickly and correctly realize that I am in no way lazy about this subject. I gave the scientific view of what energy is. I have had nothing but trouble in finding any scientific article that discusses matter being made FROM energy as you've previously stated. This isn't laziness, this is lack of verifiable scientific articles. You haven't bothered to post one such article despite being asked politely to do so. Rather, you piss and moan and call me lazy whilst ignoring previous work I've shown. Simply the biggest tool I've ever met.

and to equate intelligence with how i type is proven to be a fallacy

I never said you were unintelligent due to misspellings. Please stop misrepresenting me.

FORCE

notice that word? = ENGERY

Err, no. Force =

In physics, the concept of force is used to describe how a massive body is affected by acceleration or mechanical stress.[1] Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Related concepts to accelerating forces include thrust - any force which increases the velocity of the object, drag - any force which decreases the velocity of any object, and torque - the tendency of a force to cause changes in rotational speed about an axis. Alternatively, mechanical stress is a technical term for the efforts which cause deformation of matter, be it solid, liquid, or gaseous. While mechanical stress can remain embedded in a solid object, gradually deforming it, mechanical stress in a fluid determines changes in its pressure and volume.[2][3]

Originally posted by A52FWY
reply to post by 13579

 

I think E=MC^2 says energy can be converted from matter to energy in fission and that energy can be converted to matter through fusion, as our sun does.

Particle accelerators were called atom smashers at one time so a particle accelerator is not necessarily a fusion device like the quote implies, but it seems to be a fission device.

I don't think that's what it says.

It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number):

source

But now we have to look at what physics says about energy itself to garner a fuller understanding.

In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.

source

OK, so it now compels us to look at what they mean by force.

In physics, the concept of force is used to describe how a massive body is affected by acceleration or mechanical stress.[1] Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Related concepts to accelerating forces include thrust - any force which increases the velocity of the object, drag - any force which decreases the velocity of any object, and torque - the tendency of a force to cause changes in rotational speed about an axis. Alternatively, mechanical stress is a technical term for the efforts which cause deformation of matter, be it solid, liquid, or gaseous. While mechanical stress can remain embedded in a solid object, gradually deforming it, mechanical stress in a fluid determines changes in its pressure and volume.[2][3]

source

So basically, the equation is describing how to figure out how much 'work' a particular amount of mass/matter is able to perform if that 'work' is released suddenly all at once. It doesn't appear to me that matter and energy are interchangeable at all where we are converting one into the other as if they were separate substances. Energy is nothing more than a property or function of matter.

**The following is not directed to you specifically.

*If anyone can care to provide any other scientific article that states differently for my review, I would be more than happy to take a look at it. Meaning, don't simply state something, back it up. Not hard to do if it's true.*

reply to post by A52FWY


Removed as i just read his post .. seems hes finaly getting the jist

second line

[edit on 29-12-2009 by 13579]

reply to post by sirnex

Energy is nothing more than a property or function of matter.

thats why they are one of the same thing.. I did in fact say that.

Took a while to sink in but hey now at least you know



[edit on 29-12-2009 by 13579]

reply to post by sirnex

According to the law of conservation of energy, no energy is destroyed due to friction, though it may be lost to the system of concern. Energy is transformed from other forms into heat. A sliding hockey puck comes to rest because friction converts its kinetic energy into heat. Since heat quickly dissipates, many early philosophers, including Aristotle, wrongly concluded that moving objects lose energy without a driving force.

force = engery

you are missing the part of "scale" that comes into play

engery creates MATTER and MATTER does what?

"A sliding hockey puck comes to rest because friction converts its kinetic energy into heat. Since heat quickly dissipates, many early philosophers, including Aristotle, wrongly concluded that moving objects lose energy without a driving force."

the hockey PUCK IS made of WHAT?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by 13579]

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
Huh.
I'm curious...
if that area contains mass and has an intense gravitational pull that's strong enough to create a containment field of some kind of matter, then why isn't it dense enough to block the light from the stars behind it, or at the very least cause light passing through it to bend around it's gravitational field and render it somewhat visible?
Because, honestly, I'm no physicist, but all I see is a bunch of stars.
Perhaps I'm missing something?
Interesting stuff though.

Just to keep you right if you see individual stars in a picture they are in OUR galaxy because we cant resolve individual stars in other galaxies unless they go nova even then its a blob of light.

Reply to 13579 --- sorry if it's unorganized, I didn't want to take a lot of time on this...

At the end of the day, the article claiming that dark matter has been discovered comes across as inconclusive, as they all have been so far.

I said what I said hoping it would be better explained. But since you don't seem to have much to go on I guess it's only natural that you get angry and call me an idiot.

I really don't know why you take it so personally, it's not like you wrote the article, you just POSTED (IN) IT lol.

reply to post by 13579

engery creates MATTER and MATTER does what?

What you quoted does not state that at all.

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become thermal energy.

OK, that word "energy" there seems to have you very confused. They don't use energy as a separate substance, they use energy to describe the work performed by matter. What this law of conservation of energy is telling us is that the ability of matter to perform work in an isolated system will remain constant over time. As it states, we can't just make matter do work by itself, other matter needs to exert itself upon other matter in order for that work to arise.

the hockey PUCK IS made of WHAT?

Matter. Speaking of stupid questions!

engery creates MATTER

Now, I will ask again, can you provide any scientific articles that show some substance described as nothing but energy that creates matter that is not a function of matter? It's quiet silly that you keep claiming BS without backing that BS up. Ah right, because you can't.

reply to post by sirnex


like i said.. get a clue

ocw.mit.edu...

Im done with you...and your ignorance

reply to post by Novise


ocw.mit.edu...

Enjoy

sorry but if you cant understand it DONT BLAME ME.

reply to post by Novise


They don't know why that galaxy stays together and that's basically it. They don't know. And neither do you.

we dont but we are aware of it.. so stop thinking we know it all because we dont if that was the case

why bother asking in the first place..

the only reason you know gravity is real IS BECAUSE SOMEONE BOTHERED TO ASK..

you are just as bad and pathetic and as closed minded as the people who said

NOOO THAT CANT MAKE SENSE

untill it was prove to be the case.. SCIENCE COMES FROM OBSERVATION THEN WE MAKE A THERORY THEN WE GATHER EVIDENCE

plank

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex

 

like i said.. get a clue

ocw.mit.edu...

Im done with you...and your ignorance

LMFAO, learn to read man, it'll do you wonder's.

"SCIENCE COMES FROM OBSERVATION THEN WE MAKE A THERORY THEN WE GATHER EVIDENCE "

Yes, just be careful you don't start with a theory then make your observations with bias towards said theory. If you go into these sorts of articles with a bit of skepticism and know how to read between the lines, you will find that only under their wishful thinking have they discovered dark matter.

If they truly found dark matter it wouldn't be so complicated to convince normal people. Rocket science for example is indeed rocket science but anyone can understand how that basically works without knowing the math.

reply to post by Novise

If they truly found dark matter it wouldn't be so complicated to convince normal people. Rocket science for example is indeed rocket science but anyone can understand how that basically works without knowing the math.

normal people??? Im sorry but if one can not grasp a "concept" that is based on everyday science then you should not have to know math.. science is not a religion !!! you dont need blind faith.. thats why we have "theory" to test it and try to make sure its a FACT.. Dark matter and dark engery are there because its shows up in MATH when doing the science, we have no CLUE why it is but thats the joy of finding out..

and to sirex... Im sorry but you are the most ignorant person i have ever come across on ATS.

hope you enjoyed the vid.



Always fear the power of STUPID "more so in groups"

[edit on 29-12-2009 by 13579]