It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Supernova Discovery Nixes Dark Matter Theory

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   


Astronomers have reported a whole new type of exploding star, or supernova, which seems to spew out calcium and titanium. While most press reports have focused on the calcium, it's the titanium that's really interesting - the finding could negate ongoing efforts to find signs of dark matter at the center of the Milky Way.


Interesting, seems like it is going to be harder to find/prove dark matter/energy in the future. What do you guys think?

www.dailygalaxy.com...


[edit on 25-5-2010 by Maddogkull]




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Awe, you left out the best part of the article.


The WMAP, which supports the "concordance (Λ-CDM) model" of the Universe with up to 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter and 4% comprising all the matter in observable universe, has been under attack. Critics state that claims for the existence of invisible, unknown forces, to support a Big Bang theory where it is admitted that over 90% of the universe it seeks to explain cannot even be detected, is not what Karl Popper would have called "science.".


Looks like the Daily Galaxy is as fed up with the baloney being spewed out by mainstream scientists as I am.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Why would you quote Casey Kazan as an authority?
What do you think about what he says about black holes?

The stellar-mass black holes found in the Milky Way weigh up to ten times the mass of the Sun but, outside our own galaxy, they may just be "minor-league players," since astronomers have found another black hole with a mass over fifteen times the mass of the Sun. In 2007, an X-ray instrument aboard NASA's Swift observatory scrutinised the surroundings of the brightest X-ray source in NGC 300 discovered earlier with the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory.

Source



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I think black holes are even more ridiculous than dark matter.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes we know that. But you gleefully jump on the quote of someone who knows that they do exist, when you think it supports you.

BTW, any particular reason you left out this part of the paragraph?

While this does not prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, it challenges the interpretation that the excess positrons are coming from the annihilation of dark matter particles.



[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Interesting.

I remember an article where astronomers said that about 90 % of matter in the universe was either to dim or behind other matter and we just couldn't see it all.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



While this does not prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, it challenges the interpretation that the excess positrons are coming from the annihilation of dark matter particles.


Well this I definitely don't understand.

Why is it weird that an interpretation of the annihilation of dark matter could be wrong ?
When did they learn dark matter gets annihilated ?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes we know that. But you gleefully jump on the quote of someone who knows that they do exist, when you think it supports you.

BTW, any particular reason you left out this part of the paragraph?

While this does not prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, it challenges the interpretation that the excess positrons are coming from the annihilation of dark matter particles.



[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]


Yeah, I left it out because its pointless.

I don't believe in fairies, biblical floods, dragons, or black holes.

All of which have the exact same amount of evidence in support of their existence, that is to say ZERO.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Ah yes.
You are correct and everyone who does not agree is wrong and stupid.
I forgot.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Ah yes.
You are correct and everyone who does not agree is wrong and stupid.
I forgot.


They aren't any more wrong than the person who believes in Jesus.

The difference is the person who believes in Jesus isn't wasting billions of my tax dollars on research projects trying to prove his existence.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Great info OP.

Off topic but...I would love to see a thread dedicated to Mnemeth1 and Phage having discussions about the universe.

S&F



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellsmight
 


Agreed, Perhaps they should go on the Debate forum, and duke it out



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes we know that. But you gleefully jump on the quote of someone who knows that they do exist, when you think it supports you.

BTW, any particular reason you left out this part of the paragraph?

While this does not prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, it challenges the interpretation that the excess positrons are coming from the annihilation of dark matter particles.



[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]


Phage,

As much of a crusader for truth that you are and as determined as you are to say nothing but what you are able to confirm is the truth, you are failing right now.

You claim that someone knows that black holes exist. You are wrong, Phage.

No one knows if black holes exist or not because the black hole explanation is a theory.

You know what a theory is Phage.

And you know what is required to prove the existence of a black hole.

And because you are generally a man of science, it is unbecoming of you to have any faith in anything; but it is becoming of you to believe in what is observable and measurable.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The difference is the person who believes in Jesus isn't wasting billions of my tax dollars on research projects trying to prove his existence.


They probably are, actually.

On topic, yet again they discovered something that doesn't agree with dark matter. They discover things that don't agree with the Big Bang, too.

It's a good thing to try to prove a theory, but at what point does that become a wasteful process?

Personally dark matter doesn't make much common-sense to me. It is probably wrong. That's a layman's take. I think the experts are blinkered. Experts are always blinkered, it's their trade. Studies have shown that



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 

And yet it's fine for mnemeth1 to be perfectly cozy with the electric universe hypothesis. To be so very smug in his self assurance that Einstein was a fool.

Faith? Faith in evidence. Guilty. But I don't call that faith. The existence of black holes is confirmed through observed evidence.

The article in the OP does not say that the observations if SN 2005E disproves the existence of dark matter. It says that one proposed method of identifying dark matter may not be reliable. That is all it says.

[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes we know that. But you gleefully jump on the quote of someone who knows that they do exist, when you think it supports you.

BTW, any particular reason you left out this part of the paragraph?

While this does not prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, it challenges the interpretation that the excess positrons are coming from the annihilation of dark matter particles.



[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]


Phage, this is a fallacy and bad form.

Stephen Hawking once postulated that at the end of time, the universe would then "rewind" in the exact opposite chain of events that played out during the universes existance. That arroz con pollo i just ate would be regurgitated onto my fork at some distant point in the future.

Does him making this one crazy (and since retracted) postulation negate the value of all his other work? Can someone be right in one area, and wrong in another?

Attacking the source will not prove your point.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 

And yet it's fine for mnemeth1 to be perfectly cozy with the electric universe hypothesis. To be so very smug in his self assurance that Einstein was a fool.

Faith? Faith in evidence. Guilty. But I don't call that faith. The existence of black holes is confirmed through observed evidence.

The article in the OP does not say that the observations if SN 2005E disproves the existence of dark matter. It says that one proposed method of identifying dark matter may not be reliable. That is all it says.

[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]


Don't worry about mnemeth1's attitude. Yeah, it's poor, but he has a lot of good points.

And so do you.

But you are respected here as someone who relies on truth. And phage, there is evidence that the theory of black holes might hold water... but that does not translate to black holes being realized as a fact of nature.

The article does admit that a method they had formerly considered as a way to find dark matter is unreliable. This means that they DO NOT KNOW how to find dark matter - and dark matter is also only an explanation of a theory based on certain evidence based on a certain model of the universe and nature.

I believe that you believe what you believe... but just because someone acts a certain way, it does not make it okay for you especially to react in the same way - - a lot of people look to you, unfortunately for you, to determine whether something is worth paying attention to.

Therefore, when you claim that black holes are a fact, you are misleading a lot of people which you do not intend to mislead.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 

Ok. Would it make you happy if I say "IMHO, black holes exist"? Why should that be required? Unless I am providing an external quote, everything I write is my opinion and not someone else's. Am I supposed to qualify everything I say? Isn't it implicit?

As I said. The observational evidence of the existence of black holes is overwhelming. The evidence conforms with the theoretical models.

As of yet, the existence of dark matter is primarily theoretical. It may or may not exist. (IMHO).

[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 

Ok. Would it make you happy if I say "IMHO, black holes exist"? Why should that be required? Unless I am providing an external quote, everything I write is my opinion and not someone else's. Am I supposed to qualify everything I say? Isn't it implicit?

As I said. The observational evidence of the existence of black holes is overwhelming. The evidence conforms with the theoretical models.

As of yet, the existence of dark matter is primarily theoretical. It may or may not exist. (IMHO).

[edit on 5/25/2010 by Phage]


You are correct in saying that everything that you say is your opinion. You would not be correct in assuming that everyone knows that.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Phage
 



While this does not prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, it challenges the interpretation that the excess positrons are coming from the annihilation of dark matter particles.


Well this I definitely don't understand.

Why is it weird that an interpretation of the annihilation of dark matter could be wrong ?
When did they learn dark matter gets annihilated ?



This is really the key point of the article.

I don't know when or how they thought positrons could be evidence of dark matter, but now there seems to be an alternative explaination: this new type of supernova produces titanium which in turn produces poistrons. If the positrons are being created by titantium then they're not created by dark matter.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join