Comments on: The Dark Tale of Colliding Superclusters

By: necromonger

necromonger — Sat, 14 May 2011 03:37:57 +0000

What interest me so much is how dark matter only interacts with ordinary matter gravitationally. It does not contact normal matter(since it is believed to be very small that it simply passes through the gaps in ordinary matter) in any way other than by gravity.

What surprises me though is how its massive when it influences ordinary matter, but by itself it isn’t. (Sort of reminiscent of the higgs boson, something [which was] believed to give all the numerous subatomic particles their strange and unusual masses.) Here in the milky way it makes up most of the mass in the galaxy, yet on its own it doesn’t seem to want to coalesce with other dark matter.

By: Synthesis

Synthesis — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:30:24 +0000

Can one mesure the mass of a Black Hole??????? If not, can we not just assume the things may just weigh a sh#* tonn more than we give them credit for??? I mean, they have enough mass to warp the membrane of space time and exert enough gravity to capture light and thus make them unobservable or “Black”.. They seem to be located at the centre of galaxies which seems to me like their gravitational pull may be what cased the things to form in the first place… Thus making them the galactical equivilent of our solar systems sun with everything revolving around them. WE KNOW THEY EXIST..
Can black holes not account for the missing mass that we are giving Dark Matter all this credit for? :-) Am i being retarded??

By: antidmguy

antidmguy — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:40:40 +0000

On the off chance that someone might actually read this old article and all the comments I add this remark:
The Bullet Cluster in no way provides any more evidence for dark matter than any previous observation. There is no way to “see” dark matter in the data, rather it is just infered, the same as it has been infered from other data in the past.
Further more there is no objective reason to believe that there is such a thing as dark matter. There ARE serious inconsistancies in our obvservations of galaxies, however a precise description of the problem would be to say that astronomical objects, especially galaxies, behave as if there is more ‘gravity’ than predicted by Newton’s theory of gravity. So that means there is either some invisible source of the gravity (dark matter) OR Newtons theory of gravity is incomplete. Theories based on the premise of invisible stuff have NEVER made a correct prediction regarding the behavior of galaxies, including the Bullet Cluster. On the other hand theories based on the premise that Newton’s theory is incomplete have on several occasions made predictions that were later confirmed. The most famous example is General Relativity, though that is not relevant when talking about galaxy behavior.
Another, less famous, theory that assumes Newton’s theory is incomplete is called MOND. MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) has been exteemly successful in accounting for and predicting galaxy behavior in all but a few cases, including many cases where DM theories have been shown to be next to useless. For more information google MOND!!

By: Mirage_GSM

Mirage_GSM — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:34:30 +0000

[quote]plunki said: “…or maybe gravity’s strength has changed over the history of the universe… so that is was stronger in the past than it is now. (the light we are seeing from these galaxies is millions of years old), thus this stronger gravity could have caused the gravitational lensing effect… not dark matter.”[/quote]
Well, for starters, if gravity’s strength HAD changed over time, we should be able to observe a difference in the effect between our galaxy and other galaxies farther away.
As the article says, even in our own galaxy there is supposed to be dark matter.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:23:38 +0000

[quote]shesdeluvley said: “I’m not a scientist so I know almost nothing about the workings of the universe, but why not entertain at least the possibility that all that ‘dark matter’ is actually God! After all, doesn’t it permeate every part of the universe?

It can’t be explained any other way, just as we can’t explain God……..who knows, certainly not I, but it’s possible isn’t it?”[/quote]

Because if you say its God you say it is unknowable. No one is saying that now, they’re just saying they don’t know what it is.

By: jrfall

jrfall — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:47:12 +0000

[quote]HarleyHetz said: “40 years ago we knew almost this little about the oceans on our very planet…I surmise it will likely be longer than 40 years from now that “they” know as much about the universe…of course, it is a “bit” larger than the oceans, and a bit more inaccessable!! ;)”[/quote]

We still don’t know very much about the oceans. Only explored about 3%.

By: f1speed

f1speed — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:45:42 +0000

A bit off-topic, but honestly, I would not at all be opposed to giving NASA unlimited funds (provided there is accountability), even if it came at the expense of raising taxes. Curiosity is one of our most prevalent traits, and I can at least speak for myself when I say that I would much rather skip a coffee every other day and be exposed to the inner workings of our universe. On your death bed, would you rather think back on how you had that extra coffee and that nicer car, or how you will pass away knowing the origin of the universe and sentient life on Earth (and possibly other planets). Just thinking about how my time in this world will eventually be over, many years from now, and I would still have all of these unanswered questions in my head, is something that I have a difficult time dealing with.

By: Jeff☠Relf

Jeff☠Relf — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:03:48 +0000

In a very real way, evolution is God, hence the preaching.
Ask yourself this: Does God evolve ? if not, why not ?

Jesus talk is childish, like talk of Santa Claus.
Many of us don’t subscribe to such primitive notions.

By: dennis

dennis — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:34:01 +0000

NASA is spending billions to find water on Mars, Moon, and Comet Temple, so they can strengthen their argument for Evolution. Their motive is: they’re trying to destroy our faith in the Bible, which NASA hates. Evolution never happened. The first DNA never came together by accident. No-one believes Evolution, but they preach Evolution, because they hate the Bible so much. The Bible is True. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator.

Why are we drilled on Evolution, millions of times,……… but we never hear of other Science? We are not told of Thermo-dynamics, gravity, magnetism, levers, chemistry, inertia, centrifugal force, etc……………., but the Evolutionists preach Evolution to us every day. I smell an un-savory motive. They preach the Evolution Lie millions of times, hoping that we’ll believe the lie.

By: Old Man

Old Man — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:22:24 +0000

shesdeluvley said: "I'm not a scientist so I know almost nothing about the workings of the universe, but why not entertain at least the possibility that all that 'dark matter' is actually God! After all, doesn't it permeate every part of the universe?

It can't be explained any other way, just as we can't explain God……..who knows, certainly not I, but it's possible isn't it?"

No.