Dark matter is supposed to make up 99% of the universe and yet 'they' don't know what it is. it doesn't give one much faith in current science or belief.

The current theory seems to be that at the time of the Big Bang, all matter was contained in a pea sized object, rather than all matter spewing through an omni-directional hole the size of a needle.

I always that that dark matter was that black stuff behind the stars.

Belly button fluff accounts for 57% of it.

Complete, total and absolute scientific bull pooh.

Hundreds of years ago science couldn't explain why tides go in and out, now they can. Along with, of course an abundance of other things.

Just because science can't explain it now doesn't mean they won't in the future.

The Venky's

Answers on a postcard, please. Address them to the Nobel Institute, Christiania, Norway.
There may be a prize for the best answer.

Porridge

Shebby's deepest thoughts?

There's probably a lot of it in the brains of Rovers fans, Tory supporters and Audi drivers

Owen Coyle's footballing brain

Isn't it just a bit of hypothetical nonsense to explain the unexplainable stuff the scientists can't fathom out yet.

It fuels the Planet Express ship

It's all that stuff you find at the bottom of the toaster when you give it the 6-monthly clean.

6 months? Well posh!

Juan Mata''s brother

I always thought dark matter was something that came out of you after a night on the Guinness

LeadBelly wrote:It's all that stuff you find at the bottom of the toaster when you give it the 6-monthly clean.

You have a toaster?

Respect.

The bit of a turkey that nobody eats at Christmas

LeadBelly wrote:It's all that stuff you find at the bottom of the toaster when you give it the 6-monthly clean.

We just bought a new one rather than risk pulling that bottom tray out!

LeadBelly wrote:It's all that stuff you find at the bottom of the toaster when you give it the 6-monthly clean.

We just bought a new one rather than risk pulling that bottom tray out!

Apparently that black behind the stars in the universe rushing away from us at such a speed that the light can't get back to us and that's why it's dark, but how do they know it's not us imploding rather than the universe expanding? How can one tell the difference, if one part of the universe is rushing away from another?

I could never get it at school, when the said the Earth was in a 33 Degree tilt orbit. I imagined we were moving in a spiral with the Earth's axis vertical and the sun moving on a 33 degree trajectory to the perpendicular. I never thought the drawings made sense, I just went along with it, to pass the exam.

Here's my Earth orbit picture that would have failed me my Geography O level.

In contrast, the O level Geography model of the Earth's orbit. Doesn't look right, does it?

I have just recalculated my equations and I can confirm that dark matter represents approximately 84.5% of mass in the universe not 99%.

Tom Heaton

Pstotto wrote:In contrast, the O level Geography model of the Earth's orbit. Doesn't look right, does it?

O level Earth Orbit.jpg

Is that series of numbers in the background the exact amount of dark matter you're looking for?

... I think that's just the cosmic radiation one finds on the front of the back of an envelope. I don't know what it's doing there, it seems to be an infinite number. It must be somebody's sense of humour manifested as a calculation. Maybe that's where the dark matter is residing, it's inside an envelope in a post box.

...Or is that the back of the back of an envelope?

its all the stuff between the bright sparkly stuff if you want the scientific answer.

The black bits between the stars,yeah? I already said that on Post 1, is that an agreement?

Corky wrote:Isn't it just a bit of hypothetical nonsense to explain the unexplainable stuff the scientists can't fathom out yet.

Probably about right.

Its either that or resort to the time honoured method of invoking the name of some mythical person and crediting them for it.

... Same with art, it's called 'abstraction.'

Why preoccupy yourself with stuff that can only be answered with theories and not fact.

Certain people find it a sporting adventure to speculate and possibly find new knowledge. Also, one can absolve oneself with theorizing by stating a theory, in other words by laying the groundwork for further research, one can feel one has contributed a little to human knowledge.

The birth of agriculture and modern civilization arose from man using his knowledge of the sun before he knew that the Earth revolved around the sun, in that sense, society is actually built around a form of 'pre-knowledge.' it's open to question as to whether the fact of the Earth actually revolving around the sun has done anything for humanity, whatever that means.

If your second drawing is to scale, then there will be quite a contrast between summer and winter.

Yes it's a fully working engineering drawing precise to the micron. Same with the first picture and the wildly uneven orbit.

Anybody who solves this will then have to then tell us what dark energy is.

Are they related? They've managed to discover some form of dark energy that refutes Newton's law of Motion (I think,) where if you push something it comes back at you, along the lines of, oi... who the fknell r u? Punch.

Saxoman wrote:Why preoccupy yourself with stuff that can only be answered with theories and not fact.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Corky wrote:Isn't it just a bit of hypothetical nonsense to explain the unexplainable stuff the scientists can't fathom out yet.

Take out "nonsense" and I think you've got it summed up.

Science has progressed, now, to the state that we aren't only explaining the observable, but predicting the yet to be observed.

Dark matter has been scientifically demonstrated to be nothing more than evaporated Tockholes treacle.
QED.

is it a local version of Black Lives Matter?

Maybe correct, because we're now being brainwashed into believing that media is an actual living being whose cut edit paste and zoom is its personal expression and of that media are, as claimed by MOTD, the Nu Masters to bow down and suck up to, via an appropriation of visual dark matter,as if they were the dark and of the dark, as representatives of it. The Burnley Express is full of it nowadays, riding on the political trend of media-as-Phobos, in order for one to submit to media worship.

Juan Mata on a sunbed

To save me some time and energy, and to keep my blood pressure at a health level, can someone who has read beyond the thread title tell me if there's been an idiot that has claimed that it's just scientists making **** up?

Imploding Turtle wrote:To save me some time and energy, and to keep my blood pressure at a health level, can someone tell me if there's been an idiot that has claimed that it's just scientists making **** up?

No, get annoyed its entertaining

Corky wrote:Isn't it just a bit of hypothetical nonsense to explain the unexplainable stuff the scientists can't fathom out yet.

No. We know it exists. It's been proven to exist. We just don't have a clue what it's made of.

It's like black holes, we know where it is and how massive it is, we just can't see it. We can see how its mass affects light though.

Science from the latin "to know" hence the scientific method it should never be guess work or speculation - you can have leeway to investigate a theory for a certain period of time and class it as science but you lose all credibility if you don't cut off the ridiculous branches of science when you realize they're not scientific - otherwise chemists would still be alchemists and astronomers would still be astrologers.

There is intuition though, and guesswork is a part of the process i.e. hazarding a guess that the world is round and then setting off to see if that were the case. Alchemy and astrology have their merits and 'to know' is not the same as 'to prove beyond reasonable doubt.'

There is the phrase 'speculate to accumulate.' Speculation is pre-science but still a vital part of the 'accumulation of knowledge' process.

I speculate that there could be a transcendental order, on the basis that shape represents form (see below.) It's not scientifically proven, but a priori logic and empirical witness: