Dark matter and Dark energy

[JEROME DA GNOME]

First of all, dark energy is much more speculative and less well-understood than dark matter. The fact they both have "dark" in their names doesn't mean they're identical.

Dark matter is certainly a discovery, yes. The bullet cluster observations you had so much cognitive dissonance over just now are a direct observation of it, confirming many of the characteristics which were already known from many other independent measurements. Off the top of my head those characteristics include its mass, its distribution around galaxies, its temperature, bounds on its lifetime, its interactions, and probably more.

Please present evidence of measured temperature of Dark matter

This one should be easy.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What...you think only juveniles with cognitive dissonance can post pictures?

cognitive dissonance

Come up with a new intelligent sounding attempt at insult. This one is over used.

 

[sol invictus]

Please present evidence of measured temperature of Dark matter

This one should be easy.

Yeah, you're right.

I was feeling lucky, so here's the first google hit. There are many more, or I can link to the scientific papers, but I'm afraid they might not be very useful for you.

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8685

Astronomers at Cambridge University in the UK worked out the temperature of dark matter by using the Very Large Telescope array in Paranal, Chile, to observe how 12 dwarf galaxies circling the Milky Way move. The movements allowed the researchers to calculate how much dark matter must be holding them together.

For those that care, I should add that the observations do not all agree, although they seem to be converging. The temperature is constrained, but not with great precision so far.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yeah, you're right.

I was feeling lucky, so here's the first google hit. There are many more, or I can link to the scientific papers, but I'm afraid they might not be very useful for you.

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8685



For those that care, I should add that the observations do not all agree, although they seem to be converging. The temperature is constrained, but not with great precision so far.

From your article:

Dark matter cannot be seen but can be inferred from the gravitational forces needed to explain the rotation of galaxies - it is thought to make up a substantial part of the universe.

Let me rework this sentence for you.

Not understanding what gravitational forces rotate the galaxies we make-up a new idea called Dark matter.



Please explain how one measures the temperature of something that is unable to be measured.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8685

Great stuff in this article.

The movements allowed the researchers to calculate how much dark matter must be holding them together.

Dark matter MUST be holding them together because we have no clue what is holding them together.


Are you not understanding that the idea of Dark matter is not different than the idea of GODDIDIT?

I have no evidence but it MUST be.

 

[~enigma~]

Great stuff in this article.



Dark matter MUST be holding them together because we have no clue what is holding them together.


Are you not understanding that the idea of Dark matter is not different than the idea of GODDIDIT?

I have no evidence but it MUST be.

Your woo is strong but I bet on sol's woo-fu

 

[sol invictus]

Please explain how one measures the temperature of something that is unable to be measured.

I see you've conveniently forgotten about the bullet cluster observation we were just discussing. Cognitive dissonance has that effect - you try to ignore the facts you can't fit in to your mental framework.

I don't think there's anything I can say that will convince you, so I'm not going to bother. If you can't accept facts, it's your problem, not mine.

 

[sol invictus]

Your woo is strong but I bet on sol's woo-fu

Whack-a-woo was fun for a while, but I'm getting woorn out...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I see you've conveniently forgotten about the bullet cluster observation we were just discussing. Cognitive dissonance has that effect - you try to ignore the facts you can't fit in to your mental framework.

I don't think there's anything I can say that will convince you, so I'm not going to bother. If you can't accept facts, it's your problem, not mine.

You have presented no facts other than DARKMATTERDIDIT this is the same argument as GODDIDIT.

 

[sol invictus]

You have presented no facts other than DARKMATTERDIDIT this is the same argument as GODDIDIT.

It's the same?

OK, so you tell me - how much does god weigh? What position is she in, and why does she like to curl up so snugly around all those galaxies? What's her temperature? Her density? When two galaxy clusters collide and pass through each other, does she stay behind or go along with them? Why does she aid structure formation, create acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background, and bring the universe up to its critical density? How come she causes so much gravitational lensing? Should she go on a diet?

Once you answer all those questions mathematically and in detail, using a simple theory with only one or two free parameters, then you can say those are the same. You'll also be a famous astrophysicist rather than JEROME DA GNOME.

We're waiting....

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's the same?

OK, so you tell me - how much does god weigh? What position is she in, and why does she like to curl up so snugly around all those galaxies? What's her temperature? Her density? When two galaxy clusters collide and pass through each other, does she stay behind or go along with them? Why does she aid structure formation, create acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background, and bring the universe up to its critical density? How come she causes so much gravitational lensing? Should she go on a diet?

Once you answer all those questions mathematically and in detail, using a simple theory with only one or two free parameters, then you can say those are the same. You'll also be a famous astrophysicist rather than JEROME DA GNOME.

We're waiting....

You have to answer those questions in reference to Dark Matter. I am not making the claims, you are. Can't do it? Ohh, thats because your arguments for Dark matter are the same as the arguments for God.

 

[sol invictus]

You have to answer those questions in reference to Dark Matter.

No I don't.

Bye now.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The laughing dog will not save you.


Please, you are insisting; now with a poor attempt at ridicule, that Dark matter exists.

Do you have evidence or are you just going on faith?

 

[~enigma~]

The laughing dog will not save you.


Please, you are insisting; now with a poor attempt at ridicule, that Dark matter exists.

Do you have evidence or are you just going on faith?

I'll let him borrow this...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'll let him borrow this...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1325747b716e492d7e.gif[/qimg]

Apparently you have no understanding of Dark matter either.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you're talking about the idea it sounds like you're talking about, it doesn't work. In fact I had a hand in debunking it myself.

But you might be talking about something else.

It's possible. I don't remember the details - name, paper, peer-reviewed journal etc.

 

[rats]

You have to answer those questions in reference to Dark Matter. I am not making the claims, you are. Can't do it? Ohh, thats because your arguments for Dark matter are the same as the arguments for God.

JEROME DA GNOME, I suggest a little background reading on dark matter. The wiki article seems a nice place to start. Let me know if you need copies of journal articles not in the public domain, and please do ask any questions about anything you don't understand (though this isn't my field, I have undergrad notes to refer to, and I'm sure others here are much more knowledgeable).

I disagree with your assertion that allocating the cause of observations to dark matter is the same as giving the credit to god. Observations show something is happening. Scientists don't know why, so hypotheses are suggested. If further observations agree with predictions generated from those hypotheses, credit is given to the theories, which can then be further refined. And so on. So far the dark matter theory seems to agree with observations. Just because we don't know exactly what dark matter is, does not mean it doesn't exist. If we're 'barking up the wrong tree' a better analogy (than your god thing) would be aether.

 

[Belz...]

My additions are called "dark postings", you can't see them, but they are 10 times more massive than the observable postings, and influence the course of the conversations. We know this from observing the visible post elements. Something is causing them to move forward, when there isn't enough content in them to explain the motion.

Well, it's dark something, that's for sure.

See? More evidence of dark posting. There is no observable content by me, yet a response!

I should seek funding....

You do know that this funding doesn't buy them new houses ?

 

[Belz...]

These are make-believe things because scientists do not like not knowing and much more so do not like admitting that they don't know.

I think you meant "theists", Jerome. Slight mistake.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, but it is not a picture of dark matter.

Dark matter is inferred because we have no explanation for many things observed.

One can not take a picture of an inference.

I do not know, but I am not going to WOO an answer.

Jerome, why don't any of you actually educate yourself on the subject matter before posting your ramblings, here ? If you were just ignorant of these things, it wouldn't be too bad. But your arrogant, aggressive confidence, combined with willful ignorance, is inexcusable.