Dark Matter

[ice_ring]

I'm no scientist, but I have done some research over the past few days on dark matter. My conclusion has been sort of jarring to my strong beliefs that science is the answer to all of my questions, etc. But with this research it seems that science seems to no more reliable than Christianity (please don't make this a flame war because I said the two in the same paragraph). Whenever I imagine the "discovery" of dark matter I visualize a coversation between two scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientist A: " Well some idiot decided to try to undermine of theories, and it seems he's gettin a lot of attention. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientist B: " Damn! Well, looks like we better prove him wrong "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two months later...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientist A : " What have you discovered? Because I have nothing. "

 

 

 

Scientist B : " Well, nothing, but I have a plan, we'll call it dark matter, we won't have ANY conclusive evidence, but just because we are so respected, everyone will believe it!"

 

 

 

Scientist A : " Genius!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss.

[stan18]

the difference is religion is set in stone, while science evolves every day. Atoms, for example, was an unsupported theory hundreds of years ago, but now, we have conclusive evidence of their existence

[warri0r45]

just because its currently a theory dosent mean it wont one day be proven...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion (the existance of a god specifically) will always be a theory, never to be proven or disproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so your conclusion that science is more reliable than christianity at describing cosmology/astrology/space physics/whatever is false.

[Barihawk]

Hi. I am a Christian. I still walk around with a sword on my belt. If you blaspheme God or look at a woman the wrong way, I will kill you in the name of Christ. I dump my excrement out the window, and it causes plagues. Science is a curse word. I laugh at any fellow who claims that the Earth is anything but a disc surrounded by monsters at the center of the Universe. Gravity? Hah, God pushed it. Lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

[warri0r45]

edit: sorry to continue putting your ideas down, but -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientist A : " What have you discovered? Because I have nothing. "

 

 

 

Scientist B : " Well, nothing, but I have a plan, we'll call it dark matter, we won't have ANY conclusive evidence, but just because we are so respected, everyone will believe it!"

 

 

 

Scientist A : " Genius!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- is not how scientists form theories.

[warri0r45]

and barihawk -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanks for not being ignorant. :)

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Reference:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you even read that site? It explains what dark matter is and observational evidence for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also links to the address below which is a press release from NASA stating that they directly observed dark matter (unless you believe NASA lies):

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You fail at reading comprehension and trolling.

[warri0r45]

sorry to keep rambling on, but did you read this part? its explains clearly how the theory of dark matter came to be through the observational evidence and calculations of this swiss guy -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first to provide evidence and infer the existence of a phenomenon that has come to be called "dark matter" was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1933.[5] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

[ice_ring]

sorry to keep rambling on, but did you read this part? its explains clearly how the theory of dark matter came to be through the observational evidence and calculations of this swiss guy -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first to provide evidence and infer the existence of a phenomenon that has come to be called "dark matter" was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1933.[5] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So then everyone accepted dark matter as a proven fact, and did not even consider the fact that science could in fact be wrong. He just made up some unseeable, undetectable object to "take up space".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi. I am a Christian. I still walk around with a sword on my belt. If you blaspheme God or look at a woman the wrong way, I will kill you in the name of Christ. I dump my excrement out the window, and it causes plagues. Science is a curse word. I laugh at any fellow who claims that the Earth is anything but a disc surrounded by monsters at the center of the Universe. Gravity? Hah, God pushed it. Lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa, no need to overreact. I never said that Christians didn't believe in Science, I was making the comparison that in religion in general, people put their faith in what they have been told with no apparent proof.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Hi. I am a Christian. I still walk around with a sword on my belt. If you blaspheme God or look at a woman the wrong way, I will kill you in the name of Christ. I dump my excrement out the window, and it causes plagues. Science is a curse word. I laugh at any fellow who claims that the Earth is anything but a disc surrounded by monsters at the center of the Universe. Gravity? Hah, God pushed it. Lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Not only were the first scientists God-believing men (the idea that we can understand the universe because it has an understandable order with understandable laws that were established by a higher being) - but the Bible itself has been promoting scientific discovery since its beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leviticus 17:11 says, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅFor the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the Lord. It is the blood, given in exchange for a life that makes purification possible.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Tigra00]

Trust me, just because you've come to some "conclusive theory" doesn't mean it's wrong. Who are you to even begin to comprehend what they're talking about? I'm just curious, like...If you have a college degree in Astrophysics, I might take you a bit more seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a scientist can look at something trillions of miles away and calculate its mass and find out that it has 400 times more mass than it should, he's probably on to something. I dunno' how they find that information out, but he's obviously much more intelligent than you, and probably doesn't need your help in theorizing the make-up of the entire known Universe. :lol:

[Anesthesia]

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is one person in particular who is proving that isn't 100% true, starting topics trying to prove the world wrong then ignoring the evidence presented. You might be decent and open to reason, some people aren't though.

[masterdez]

Wikipidia can be editied by anyone, no information on it is certainly correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current theorys do not agree with some measurments taken from the solar system/universe, some to do with the expansion rate of the universe. Extra matter was predicted, but it cannot be seen, so the name Dark Matter was proposed. Particles such as the neutrino, WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles) and some others have been looked at, but from what i know, noone has ever observed "Dark Matter" itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dark energy is also a theory under consideration. New scientist has some interesting articles on both topics.

[Anesthesia]

Wikipidia can be editied by anyone, no information on it is certainly correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why encyclopaedic content has to be referenced.

[masterdez]

Still, its a relatively unreliable source of evidence.

[insane]

Still, its a relatively unreliable source of evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theoretically, you're right. Practically, it's pretty reliable. I wouldn't cite it as a source though.

[petey]

the difference is religion is set in stone, while science evolves every day. Atoms, for example, was an unsupported theory hundreds of years ago, but now, we have conclusive evidence of their existence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What he said :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also...Jesus was 4ft :XD:

[Anesthesia]

I wouldn't cite it as a source though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe plenty of university students the world over have got in trouble for doing just that. It is kind of funny because if they'd gone to the references section and then viewed and cited THOSE sites they would have been just fine...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way I use it is to understand the concepts as things are generally presented in layman's terms, then I can manage to understand the real sources.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is one person in particular who is proving that isn't 100% true, starting topics trying to prove the world wrong then ignoring the evidence presented. You might be decent and open to reason, some people aren't though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I can think of at least one person in particular who does the same thing on the other side - certainly it isn't something we should characterize all athiests as, though.

[darkmage099]

Ghost:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Umm....Didn't the church finally admit that the center of the universe was not Earth in 1996. You can't say all of Christianity supports science.

[masterdez]

IMO relgion and science shouldnt be mixed. Relgion is finding out about yourself and learning a way to live. Science is about finding out about the universe in which we live.

[Guest GhostRanger]

IMO relgion and science shouldnt be mixed. Relgion is finding out about yourself and learning a way to live. Science is about finding out about the universe in which we live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity isn't about finding out about yourself - and that is a pretty big religion to leave out in your definition.

[masterdez]

 

IMO relgion and science shouldnt be mixed. Relgion is finding out about yourself and learning a way to live. Science is about finding out about the universe in which we live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity isn't about finding out about yourself - and that is a pretty big religion to leave out in your definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whats it about then?

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

IMO relgion and science shouldnt be mixed. Relgion is finding out about yourself and learning a way to live. Science is about finding out about the universe in which we live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity isn't about finding out about yourself - and that is a pretty big religion to leave out in your definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whats it about then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus, primarily. An easy way to figure that out would be by looking at the word: Christianity. There's more to it, of course - but it pretty much centers around Jesus saving everyone from eternal damnation.

[masterdez]

 

 

 

IMO relgion and science shouldnt be mixed. Relgion is finding out about yourself and learning a way to live. Science is about finding out about the universe in which we live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity isn't about finding out about yourself - and that is a pretty big religion to leave out in your definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whats it about then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus, primarily. An easy way to figure that out would be by looking at the word: Christianity. There's more to it, of course - but it pretty much centers around Jesus saving everyone from eternal damnation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea dont you take jesus as a role model and live your life around him? Which is a way to live, if im not mistaken...