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.
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.
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.".
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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 ?