BS: Dark Matter

Subject: BS: Dark Matter
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:40 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/05/16/dark.matter.ring.reut/index.html


from the article:
""It's really exciting if it's right. But to be sort of convinced of the ring, astronomers would really want to see some independent observations verifying it," Massey said."


But then, lack of knowledge has never stopped Mudcat from discussing something...


(for BillD:)

Does anyone else out there think that this is an interesting "find"?

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: mrdux
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:54 PM

bb:

I, for one, think it's fascinating.

michael (a reformed science guy)

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:56 PM

It was predicted by the theories, hence it was an expected find.

It's interesting that someone claimes they've found it.

It will be almost as interesting to see if a few others can agree that it's been found.

It won't slow down the attempts others will make to find others like it - or others a little different.

There's bound to be an argument eventually - and that may be really interesting! (It depends on which teams are playing.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:57 PM

I, for two. I agree with the thoughts expressed by Mister Massey: "Given that dark matter is the most common stuff in the universe, the fact that we know almost nothing about it at the moment is really rather embarrassing."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: skipy
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:59 PM

When having turkey, I prefer the dark meat!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:03 PM

Amos,

It is something like common sense- SUPPOSED to be everywhere, but no-one every seems to have any.

8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:01 PM

Since I don't know squat about it, and since the people who do know squat say they don't, ("Given that dark matter is the most common stuff in the universe, the fact that we know almost nothing about it at the moment is really rather embarrassing," Massey said.") I will leave now.


Interesting? You bet!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:08 PM

"The existence of dark matter was first suggested in the early 1930's by the Swiss physicist Fritz Zwicky who calculated that the radial velocities of eight galaxies was 400 times greater than that expected by the shared gravity of luminous matter in those galaxies. The explanation given by Zwicky to his extraordinary find was to suggest the existence of what he called "dark matter", or matter which cannot be directly observed but can be inferred indirectly by its gravitational influence on visible matter. Analogously, imagine a caveman, who never saw a modern city, looking at New York at night. Naturally he will assume that New York is just a collection of light sources since all he can see is a variety of bright dots. Just like New York, space has much more then meets the eye."

Neat summary here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:09 PM

It was a dark and stormy night ...

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:36 PM

As she was not yet seventeen, her pregnancy was a dark and stormy matter...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: MMario
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:40 PM

I don't know why it has taken so long to find a ring of dark matter - there is one around the tub every time we bathe the dog!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:46 PM

"Previous Hubble observations showed another collision between two galaxy clusters in which dark matter appeared to behave differently."

This refers to the astronomical picture that shows a collision of two clusters. An area of warping (falsly colored blue) infers that dark matter seems to pass unimpeded through a cluster while normal matter is greatly slowed with much more interaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:20 PM

Perhaps the ring was formed after the two black holes in the center of each cluster hit head on.

If so one might have expected a mega dynamic quasar like explosion.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:05 PM

*grin*...getting closer, bruce (but then, this is a pretty neutral subject)

I, too, think it's fascinating. But it will take a LOT of research to be sure that's what they found. Anything that can't be looked at, and can only be inferred, is kinda hard to pin down.



Now, where's the REST of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:20 PM

OK. I realize this is a really good effort to get folks onto topics wherein the arguments won't get heated. (Good on ya, BB.)

So, when God made the universe, did the dark matter matter only half as much when He said, "Let there be light"?

HEE HEE HEE

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:26 PM

God, being all-knowing, and giving mankind the gift of **reason**, knew that we'd realize that "let there be light" logically meant there HAD to be dark to compare it to....ergo...












(I think)

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:13 PM

Actually, "Let there be light" is merely a paraphrase of the actual statement.

The complete text is not currently accessible, but artifacts are being studied to attempt it's reconstruction from the oldest surviving material.

The most commonly cited fragments generally accepted to have survived in form representing the actual statement are summarized at:

Abridged Transcript of the "Light" speech

Note that some of the "words" used in this transcript are not readily pronounced by persons not immersed in the study of the history and meaning of the statement.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:32 PM

LOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: BanjoRay
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:59 PM

The dark matter is in fact where God's been hiding all these years.
Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:31 PM

OK. I gotta ask a really stupid question.

Earthquakes. Could they be caused by 'shock' waves of sound so low we have trouble registering them? Like waves--caused by BIG explosions--that have travelled through the expanse of time and space (cliche, I know) and have finally hit our planet?

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:56 PM

"Anything that can't be looked at, and can only be inferred, is kinda hard to pin down."

You mean questions like "What is folk music?"

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:34 AM

"Could they be caused by 'shock' waves of sound so low we have trouble registering them"


"caused"?

Well the theory (which is not necessarily espoused by the "Design by old guy with a long beard mob!") goes that the tectonic plates are moving relative to each other and 'hang up' for a while until they finally let go, the grinding together of the edges produces the shock-wave.

Occam's Razor - "Do not endlessly propagate unnecessary entities".

In other words - KISS!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:49 AM

There's lots of dark matter around. It's just that scientists work during the day, so they only see it when it's light. In fact I trod in somne dark matter on the way home from the pub last night. Scientists should get their act together. Put on a night shift, double time and an extra week's holiday. Look at the dark side of the moon, and where the sun don't shine.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:07 AM

"It's just that scientists work during the day,"

Not in the field of astronomy!

And certainly not all of those in other fields- Many of us are working in the dark, most of the time!

8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:39 AM

Well, astronomers working at NIGHT are looking at the BRIGHT bits innit. If they put the cap back on the telescope they'd see the DARK matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:43 AM

Peace:

No.

Shock waves require particle density, no matter how low the frequency, to propogate. And between here and Sol, there just ain't much in the way of particle density.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:22 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:24 PM

I think Occam may have been fulla shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:33 PM

clean shaven shit, anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:32 PM

A.N.Whitehead offered a corollary to Occam's Razor:

"Strive for simplicity...but learn to mistrust it."
but this corollary is almost unnecessary IF one understands the whole of the Razor:
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

The fact is, some folks just like embroidering theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:39 PM

I agree. I think Occam's Razor is often employed because people don't want to think about it anymore. In many instances, OR makes sense. But every situation is not a place to employ the principle. A good friend--quite brilliant in fact--said when I asked if he believed in God: "No." I wondered why. He replied, "I don't need the complication in my life." Occam had the complication in his life. (Of course, the razor thing was something that had been employed in philosophy before Occam entered the picture.) There are times when I wish folks would just avoid mentioning Occam as though he were an authority. No offense to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:59 PM

*grin*..Occam just provided the first real formulation of a basic principle that a lot of people, including philosophers, had sort of understood viscerally.
   Now he is sort of honored by being used as the 'shorthand' reference.

Wikipedia gives a pretty concise history & explanation of the 'razor' and its applications and limitations.

The point is not that we should take some 13th century scholar as an 'authority' on how to to think today, but that some logical principles are so useful and important that we CAN identify them by a historical reference.

Nowadays, folks usually use the more 'earthy' form...K.I.S.S....but it's essentially the same idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:25 PM

True, Bill. But some things just aren't at all simple. Something I think shown by the motion of fluids or chaos theory itself. Or human activity. We can reasonably predict what 1,000,000 people will do this year (die, give birth, end up in jail), but it is difficult to predict what ten of those folks will do based on the larger model.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:30 PM

At the ever popular American Scientist site, the current issue has a nice little article titled "Fat Tails" right at the top that deals with some examples of "statistics" that don't extrapolate between large samples and small samples, in quite unexpected ways. It probably will be of interest only to those with some mathematical curiosity, but is worth a glance.

You could go directly to the article at Fat Tails but then you'd miss the separate article at the first link to Dark Matter Comes to Light.

The latter article is a discussion of how to make pictures for publication of something that can't be seen. Although it's more related to displaying results of general dark matter surveys, and not specific to the "circular" object in recent reports, it may help some who have difficulty visualising the visible depicting of things that are invisible.

Both articles should offer "printer friendly" and .pdf versions for those who need to find a kid to explain them.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:53 PM

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070516.html

note that the vast majority of objects in this picture are galaxies, NOT stars!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:18 PM

It's astronomically dark fecal matter.   Star Drek.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:45 PM

"In many instances, OR makes sense. "

Well, if you start with a strong immutable belief that a certain book must be taken as an exact literary explanation of the creation of what you live in, then things like radioactive dating, etc are unnecessary complications.

Once however you do decide to accept that one - then you end up with enormous confusing complicating intellectual contradictions - William was just trying to make the intellectual processes simpler, and thus less difficult to grasp - So was Galileo... and look what happened to him - 600 years to get his idea formally accepted by the Church...

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Rowan
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:33 AM

John's "some examples of "statistics" that don't extrapolate between large samples and small samples" brought to mind the old notion that most of us have more than the average number of fingers (and eyes. legs, any part of the body that is an integer-rather than integral?).

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:20 AM

Yes, Rowan, but the objects the article talks about don't even have averages.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 May 07 - 09:07 AM

save me a drumstick.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Bill D
Date: 18 May 07 - 11:58 AM

bass or snare?

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:14 PM

"...snare?

I'm not going to get caught in that old trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:47 AM

But aren't fingers integral digits?

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 20 May 07 - 12:12 AM

Foolestroupe,
So is a barre chord actually a digital capo??!!

I'm getting scared of the dark.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 20 May 07 - 12:13 AM

...for that matter!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 May 07 - 04:42 AM

But aren't fingers integral digits?

That would likely be taken as true, provided that they're attached in the usual manner.

Of course the contrasting concept of integer digits is sort of a redundundanancy.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: 3refs
Date: 20 May 07 - 05:25 AM

The more we learn, the more we realize just how little we know.

We look out there, in wonder and awe! We try to figure it all out! Look at your surroundings here on earth. How many neighbors, who live a stones throw away, have you never conversed with? See where trying to look at creation might be a bit of a stretch!

Can't see the forrest cuz the trees are in the way!

I think if you can get a grasp on here, out there becomes a history book we can finally read.

Mayan Calander 2012!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 May 07 - 07:45 AM

"The more we learn, the more we realize just how little we know."

Employ a teenager today, before they grow old and forget evrything!

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: Rowan
Date: 21 May 07 - 02:44 AM

Too right, Foolestroupe.
My elder daughter turns 16 on Thursday and the younger becomes a teenager three weeks later.

I figure my Early onset Alzheimers ought to blend perfectly with their adolescence so that I'll instantly forget everything I should ever have noticed in the first place.

A very dark matter.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Dark Matter
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 May 07 - 05:18 AM

Doom, doom-doom, doom,

Doo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oom!

---

It was confusing to have two threads running with the same title, so I combined them. I hope that was the best thing to do. Messages above were from 2007.
-Joe Offer-