Space Fan News #62: Dark Matter Is Irritating Me; Hubble Turns 22; Discovery Barnstorms D.C.
100 Comments


Hello Space Fans and welcome to another edition
of Space Fan News. Dear Dark Matter, You are really starting to irritate me. It’s
bad enough that you won’t interact with me in any way: I can’t see you, smell you, touch
you or otherwise sense your existence in any way. I try very hard not to take that personally,
but this is really starting to get me down. You make up 80% of the mass of the universe.
EIGHTY PERCENT! Now I realize you probably feel aloof and all high and mighty because
of that, but come on! Why you gotta be like that? You should at least try to interact
with us once in a while. We need to find you. We’re looking really
hard because we need to know you’re there – it’s important because our galaxies don’t
rotate right without you and gravity gives us wonky results if you turn out to be the
scientific equivalent to unicorns and fairies. Can you help a species out? Love always,
Tony PS. The same goes for your pal dark energy. OK, now that I have that out of my system
I can tell you what all that was about. This week, astronomers from ESO, using telescopes
high in the Chilean mountains announced some results that really put me off. Now don’t get me wrong, they actually did
a very cool thing: they carefully mapped the motions of more than 400 stars up to 13 000
light-years from the Sun. Then, from those motions calculated the mass of all that material
in the vicinity of the Sun, which is a volume four times larger than ever measured before. I actually thought this was a great idea.
I mean, we think dark matter is out there so why not look for it close by where we can
make really accurate measurements and see how much there is in our backyard. Well guess what? It all matched! All the matter they could see within 13,000
light years – stars, gas, dust, all of it – matched the mass they calculated from the
motions.Why is that so irritating? Because if it all adds up, then it means there’s
no room for extra stuff – you know, the stuff that’s supposed to be there but we can’t see
it? That’s right, the stuff I gave to all the kids for Halloween last year: dark matter. Apparently there’s none anywhere near us. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be there either.
According to our observations of the Milky Way, the galaxy is rotating much faster than
the visible matter alone can account for. The stars only travel the way they do because
there must be something we can’t see affecting their motions. The amount of material we can
see through all wavelengths and telescopes isn’t enough to make them move that fast. And it isn’t just our galaxy. All of the galaxies
we’ve looked at have strange rotation curves that are faster than can be accounted for
by the observable material. So there HAS to be something we can’t see
affecting the way they circle around as the galaxy rotates. There has to be! According to our models, the Milky Way has
a halo of dark matter that looks like this. See? It’s pretty much even all over the place,
so there’s no reason there shouldn’t be some near the Sun. In order for there to still
be dark matter and agree with the observations from the ESO guys, then if it’s there, then
it has to have some really weird distribution around the galaxy, like an hourglass or some
equally unlikely shape to avoid having any near here. So if dark matter isn’t present where we think
it ought to be, then we have to come up with some other explanation for the missing mass
problem.Stupid dark matter. You’d better show yourself
pretty darn soon. Next, on a lighter note, the Hubble Space
Telescope turned 22 this week! To celebrate, the Hubble team has released
this image of a huge star forming region in the Large Magellanic Cloud, aka the LMC. The
LMC is a dwarf galaxy right next to us and it hosts one of the largest star forming regions
anywhere. This stellar nursery is larger than anything
we have in the Milky Way. Known as 30 Doradus, it is located in the heart of the Tarantula
nebula – a star forming complex 170,000 light years away. Here is where they are: this is a time lapse
taken from ESO’s Paranal location in Chile. You see those two very large blobs rotating
near the horizon? Those are the large and small Magellanic Clouds, they can only be
seen in the southern hemisphere and the Tarantula nebula is in the larger blob. The stars here are millions of times more
massive than our sun. The image is roughly 650 light-years across and contains some very
active stars, including one of the fastest rotating stars as well as the highest velocity
stars ever observed by astronomers. Here we can view all stages of star birth,
from embryonic stars a few thousand years old and still wrapped in cocoons of dark gas,
to behemoths that die young in supernova explosions. This nursery churns out stars at a furious
pace over millions of years and we can see star clusters of various ages, from about
2 million to 25 million years old. The region’s centerpiece is a giant, young
star cluster named NGC 2070, which is only 2 to 3 million years old. There are roughly
500,000 stars here and it is a hotbed for young, massive stars. Its dense core, known
as R136, is packed with some of the largest stars found in the nearby universe, weighing
more than 100 times the mass of our sun. Happy Birthday Hubble! Here’s to 22 more years…. Finally, the Space Shuttle Discovery barnstormed
over Washington D.C. this week on it’s final flight ever. The specially built 747 used
to take the shuttles from California back to Florida when weather didn’t permit landing
at Kennedy Space Center – ferried it one last time to it’s permanent retirement home at
the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum at Dulles Airport. It looked a little haggard as it made it’s
way: dark streaks covering the white paint stood in stark contrast to the Enterprise
– a prototype glider that NASA used for test flights early in the shuttle program. But then hey, what do you expect? Let’s see
how you look after 39 missions, 365 days in space, orbiting the Earth 5,830 times, traveling
148,221,675 miles and dealing with re-entry. Anyway, since it’s so close by, I plan to
make a trip down there to pay my respects and see it up close and personal. After all,
this is the least I could do for the shuttle that put the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit
and fixed it all those times. Thanks Discovery. (Boy, I am doing an inordinate amount of talking
to inanimate objects in this episode) That’s it for this week Space Fans, thanks
for watching and, as always, Keep Looking Up!

100 thoughts on “Space Fan News #62: Dark Matter Is Irritating Me; Hubble Turns 22; Discovery Barnstorms D.C.

  1. The light from the farthest matter we can see took 13.8 billion years to reach us, but since then the Universe has expanded so that the matter is actually 93 billion light years from us now. But we don't know what is past that. It could keep on going for infinity.

  2. I speak to inanimate objects all the time too. I find those conversations to be a lot more interesting and less stupid than most conversations I have with human beings.

  3. I visit the hubble collection fairly regularly and the other day, I guess just a wee bit after they released that image, I went there and I thought to myself – why is this image not familiar and how could I have not downloaded it so far. Then, to my delight I found out this was actually a new image. 😀

  4. Like the "space" between quarks make up most of the mass in protons, most of the mass in universe is "space" as well.

  5. couldn't all the extra mass just be from planets and black holes? i would think more planet would form on the edges of the galaxy rather then near the chaotic center.

  6. Tony, if you can’t see, feel, touch or sense dark matter in any way then how do you know it makes up 80% of the mass of the universe?
    Do you know something you’re not telling us….Hmmmmm

  7. If a cloud did that it would have to be very large and made of something heavy, like iron. I wouldn't say it's impossibly, but more probably unlikely that a cloud could do that atm. As long as there is material that can be efficiently used for fusion, nuclear force will win against the weaker force of gravity and create a star. I'd guess that a star's optimal size is only limited by how much raw material gravity can gather before triggering fusion. 🙂

  8. Funny how darkmatter is just a theory.. yet its treated as an empirical fact.. They don't find anything.. So may as well change the theory.. so people can cling to that as fact until it doesnt stand up to experiments, and needs to be changed again..

  9. There are planned gravitational wave telescopes,actually.the distance you are talking about will be true if that shell is actually moving on the opposite direction of us,right?But can it always be like that?Do we know where the centre of the universe is and do we know where we are in the whole universe?Imagine the universe as a sphere that is expanding,and say that earth is on an x spot and on the same plane is another object y.

  10. (both Earth and the object are on the same hemisphere and on the same plane as the center)If the universe is expanding in that way then we should be keeping a steady distance to the object,right?But that can change.If we are on the same plane(which passes through the center again)but on different hemispheres then we will be moving away from each other,right?You can get a lot of different effects like that and the other object won't be always moving away from us.That is if the universe is like

  11. that.But we cannot be certain about that.So I just remain to the things we can see and suppose about the rest.I hope I made my opinion clear and I await yours.

  12. Empirical: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

    So… Like I already wrote.. its just a theory… Yet its treated like fact.. They tried to verify it, and failed.. So far all they have is theory and logic..

    I agree with majority of what you wrote, but it's not an empirical fact.

  13. Hell, gravity is not even completely understood, and well defined.. So to use it to detect stuff makes it so that whatever you detect is no more defined than the properties of the detector.. may as well be magic. It's bastardized science you're trying to push on me.

  14. Hey Tony. Dark matter is merely ordinary non-self-luminous matter of dwarf-planet size or smaller, swarming around in interstellar space. Oort-cloud stuff, in other words. There's a lot more of it than has been generally supposed. The integrated apparent magnitude of all stars visible from a typical place in a spiral arm is −6.7, making the radiant flux 1.2e-5 W/m², making the equilibrium blackbody temperature 2.75K, meaning the S/N ratio versus the CMBR quite, quite low.

  15. "Hell, gravity is not even completely understood, and well defined"
    That's almost too ridiculous to even address. In nearly 100 years of rigorous testing, General Relativity has never failed a single experimental challenge. Even by a little bit. It's actually better understood than EM.
    You're science education really could use some work. But it's not my responsibility to to help your education. Just to point out the fallacies in your claims so that others aren't mislead by them.
    Have a nice day.

  16. ^sbergman27
    @sbergman27

    Fallacies? How about how you actually didnt point out a single fallacy, and you actually refer to the 'Theory' of General Relativity.. If it's so fool proof then why bother with Quantum Theory. All you have done so far is use straw man fallacies to defend your spoon fed knowledge..

  17. Well, the observation of no dark matter in the immediate vicinity contradicts your even distribution of mass statement. I don't use any buzzwords at all. You can find research as I have on the nonsingular black hole model as well as Einstein-Rosen bridges. Also I never argue once for a concentration of dark matter at galactic centers, but rather an unseen bridge of spacetime within central black holes. With regard to the bullet cluster I've made a video on that as well. Out of comment space.

  18. It's just very difficult to communicate that I'm not proposing gravity is a scalar amount. The idea of more gravity being in one place than another is not the basis of my hypothesis. My hypothesis is based on a concept of spacetime as more of an Einstinian fabric. That gravity is just the shape of spacetime. That a wormhole changes that shape in our universe. What is seen as more gravity is nothing more than space with greater curvature. No dark matter @galactic centers only inverted space

  19. It would be interesting to find out the threshold in which visible matter no long can account for localized orbits. If the math adds up properly in any particular 13,000 LY Sphere that we measure, but starts to not add up at 50,000 LY sphere then maybe there is no dark matter.. Just a different set of rules at macro distances. Basically Quantum, Newton(Standard) and some kind of Macro model.

  20. Also if wormholes exist then maybe they are multiplying the effect of gravity. Basically the wormhole could have a gravity well that created by it's own mass and then also the gravity that is on the other end of the wormhole. Especially so if most "Other ends" are near the center of the galaxy where mass/gravity is concentrated. I suppose If matter really is just an effect of space, then wormholes won't be able to transport it. But if gravity really is conveyed via particles, then it could.

  21. I am not trying to argue that Dark Matter does not exist. The theory is not yet complete, yet is treated as if it is so complete and sound that there are no other possible theories. The theory does not describe what dark matter is. The theory does not describe why there appears to be an absence of DM as described in this video. I do need to read up more on DM theory though, I thought it was developed to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

  22. I don't care to argue. I would rather respect the value of your input. I do need to study more. You obviously have more experience in such matters, no pun intended. I think everything you have wrote is quality. Thank-you for your time, and I hope my ignorance was not too offensive.

  23. I am not educated enough to provide anything close to a working hypothesis. There is a lot to take into account, and I have yet to understand any significant portion of that information. I merely find it disconcerting when a general attitude about theories serves to stifle independent thought. I bet you could come up with some alternate hypothesis.

    I have a crazy hypothesis actually, I could lay it on you if you want, you might find it entertaining, and I would welcome feedback.

  24. Well to keep it short, its kinda based on the periodic table of elements, black holes, atomic crystalline structure, and a crap load of imagination. So, if black holes were like super-massive atoms perhaps they are interacting to form an extremely loose crystalline structure. I could go on, but usually this is enough to earn ridicule. Usually I am just informed that electrons don't exist in black holes and such. Anyways, that idea popped into mind one day, and I thought it could be tested.

  25. This indicates to me that dark matter may not be about “what” we can’t see. Could it be we need to re-think about “dark matter” more as an issue with “how” we are seeing things?

  26. You said it yourself,from a point.That point is where the expansion starts and that is the center of it.Also I still can't understand how our observable universe is 98.2 Bly while we can see only the 13,75 Bly.We will be able to see in 98.2 Bly in the far future,not now.But what we are saying now is just theories that will stay theories for years.P.S Very nice video but I can't understand how that supports your opinion.

  27. I used the integrated magnitude of all the stars other than the sun, which is about −6.7. The conversion to MKS flux is fairly straightforward.

    m = −2.5 log F − 18.98

    where the logarithm is base 10, F is flux in W/m², and m is the apparent magnitude to be converted to flux.

    Stars are blackbody radiators to a first approximation. Note that undergraduate students routinely use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find stellar radii from luminosity and temperature.

  28. In my first comment, the signal I was referring to was the thermal emission from starlight-warmed interstellar matter. On the average, in the galactic spiral arms, you can expect their equilibrium temperatures to be about the same as the temperature of the CMBR, which was the "noise" in the comparison I made earlier.

  29. i'm so high right now, tdarnell is really good, i'm appreciating what you are doing for us.

    now im off to bed i can barely type, gee

  30. If it really is that way then some time ago my living room and your living room were the same point,as I said,it could be like that*.And I still can't understand what you say.I see an object that currently is 43 Bly away but that object might not even exist as we speak and it will certainly not be the same,we see an old picture of it,really old one.As long as I can't see that as I see it is 43 Bly then I can't say that the observable universe is 98 Bly in diameter,I can't call that observable.

  31. *but right now if we consider that the universe is finite but we can't see all of it,how can we know where the center is?Thinking that Earth is the center is sort of not plausible but it could be true,and as long as we don't know where the center is then all points in the universe might be the center,seen or unseen.

  32. The theoretical five-dimensional aspect of gravity suggests that there could be a greater amount of mass-energy in the other two dimensions, which would have attractive/propulsive effects on our observable mass-energy. Too simple? Maybe not.

  33. How can interstellar mass warmed by starlight alone, subject to a total flux of 12 μW/m², have a color temperature of 5000K? You can't possibly be speaking of emission spectra because very cold stuff doesn't radiate (significantly) in the visible band. Do you refer to reflected light?

  34. There's a cop-out, if ever I heard one. Yes, I'm a racist, and I have good empirical reasons for my opinions. And changing the subject is a common tactic for evading a losing argument.

    Interstellar space, at least in the neighborhood of the sun, has an equilibrium blackbody temperature, from starlight flux, of about 2.75K, which is about the same as the CMBR temperature. Which means that you can see small-sized non-self-luminous matter only near stars. Which is where you -do- find a lot of it.

  35. I think that you might be referring to the kinetic temperature of the gas constituent of the interstellar medium. Yes, that does have a color temperature of 5000-10000 K. But if you read my first comment more carefully, you'll see that I wasn't speaking of gas. I referred, instead, to bodies of matter smaller than planets, but larger than dust. I claim that this material exists in previously unexpected abundance, has thermal emission similar to the CMBR, and has a low S/N relative to the CMBR.

  36. There is doubt about VY CMa real size,last time I checked,there are scientists who believe that it is a huge M-class star with a diameter of 1900-2100 solar radii and others that believe it is a normal red supergiant with a diameter of around 600 solar radii.

  37. No its mass is somewhere between 20-30 solar masses but it is much less dense than the sun due to its size and as I said above it has a diameter of 1900-2100 solar radii,the volume(if my memory doesn't fail me) is indeed a billion times bigger than the Sol's

  38. Dark matter isn't missing, it's not there at all. The problem of galaxies rotating to evenly is not one of missing mass, but one of missing force. We only account gravity in cosmology, when the galaxy as a whole is one big big ball of electrically conductive plasma, that if conceivable currents run through it, may easily account for the rotating galaxy by the magnetic forces created. It's the old story: If theory doesn't match observed data, dismiss the data ("we just don't see all the mass")

  39. Is it possible, that black holes in centre of galaxies have much, much more mase/gravity than scientists believe, and this could explain the faster rotation of stars in galaxies?

    Sorry in advance for this n00b question 🙂

  40. maybe we can not see dark matter because we do not have the ability to see into another dimension. Perhaps all dimensions that we can not see interact with each other

  41. I think this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

    Dark matter doesn't really make sense based on how the universe works.
    Yes there's something we are missing but dark matter, i think not.

    Humans have always had problems with thinking outside their tiny box.
    Just take extremophiles as an example.

    Humans thought they were the center of the universe
    That kind of ego, inflated self-importance etc.. doesn't go away over night
    Some are genetics so expect a few 100 000 years, if unlucky

  42. I have been suspicious of dark matter ever since the first reports which included photographs which were later admitted to be photoshopped. No, they were not used just to "illustrate" where dark matter would be, as you did in your video.
    How could anomalous rotational curves be explained? If you assume a SMBH at the core, it would have the opposite effect of widely dispersed dark matter. IOW, if you eliminate *both* assumed masses, the anomaly disappears. (cont'd)

  43. Pt. 2. Trivia question: which came first, the theory of "missing matter" or the discovery of anomalous galactic rotational curves? Guess what. "Missing matter" was hypothesized long before there was any evidence of it. Apparently some scientists couldn't resist the lure of "closing the Universe" by discovering the huge amount of mass that would be required to achieve that. So, IMO, they just invented it and virtually faked, or at the very least, recklessly misinterpreted…(cont'd)

  44. Pt. 3. …the evidence in support of dark matter.
    I have seen three examples of evidence presented to support the claim of dark matter and ALL of them seem very fishy to me.
    I hope I'm wrong, because I love science and have nothing less than a reverent attitude for what it has achieved, but I fear this will be revealed to be a hoax that will dwarf Piltdown Man. In this time of fundamentalist religious antagonism toward science, that would be very bad for everyone who is an advocate of science.

  45. I have been unable to find any article which demonstrates the lensing effect which is not based on unverified assumptions.
    I am suspicious of the "hard evidence" which I have seen. Is it all based on those little arcs that can be seen around a galactic cluster? Do you believe an extremely diffuse mass, dispersed over a couple million light years would have that distortional effect on more distant objects?

  46. For a naive, dumb fuk like me – this is presented so that I finally "understand "IT"(dark matter)" (with my humble human narrow mind) it! Astrophysics – LOL!

  47. Once again. I doubt that dark matter is anything more than a significantly higher than expected density of ordinary, non-self-luminous matter in interstellar space. I'm not referring to gas, which has a kinetic temperature corresponding to 5000 to 10000 Kelvin. Rather, I mean gravel-and-asteroid sized material. You find a lot of this stuff near stars. But you'd probably also find it between the stars, and you'd expect it to be cold (2.7K to 5.2K) and difficult of detection.

  48. As massive objects within eachothers gravitational reach have a common center or gravitation, a huge collection of matter spread evenly over an area, should create a "gravitational bubble" around itself that acts like the gravitational field around a single massive object. Gravity can work it's force over huge distances. a few million kilometers between objects shouldn't matter at all.

  49. Gravitational lensing is only observed in close vicinity of extremely dense, large masses. Dark matter does not fit this description. Even the sun just *barely* alters the apparent position of stars and only when they are very close to our line of sight to the sun.
    Furthermore, why would the galaxies in the center of such a supposed mass not be distorted in the slightest?

  50. 1) As far as I know, gravitational lensing occures also in areas previously to be assumed to be empty, giving first indications of the presence of dark matter.
    2) The effects of an extreme quantity of very very small gravitational sources might act differently than huge objects
    3) Light, as it is a very small particle/wave will react more to small gravitational changes than a planet or a star, who itselve has a huge gravitational mass, influencing those particles stronger than they influence it

  51. Gravitation stacks with multiple objects. A quadrillion of tiniest particles in a vast area will cause this area to have a stronger gravitational pull than a comparable area that is empty.
    I am not an expert on dark matter or gravity, but considering that a simple googlesearch for "dark matter gravitational lense" would have got you a few thousand pages about that topic, makes me believe you aren't one either.

  52. "Gravitation stacks with multiple objects." Good point. Ironically, that is one of my objections to the "predicted" rotation curves of spiral galaxies. I do not believe this theoretical rotation includes the huge amount of mass contained in the interstellar medium, exaggerating the difference between predicted and observed curves. I would also like to know to what degree tidal drag has been considered.
    No, I'm not an expert in dark matter, cosmology, or astrophysics,
    (cont'd)

  53. Pt. 2., but I do have a good layman's grasp of these subjects. I don't believe *anybody* is an expert in dark matter, since it has never been detected directly. I believe the inference of dark matter has been made hastily and elevated by two or three photos which I have some problems with.
    The Abell cluster, for example, has those arcs. I just don't believe they are "lensed" galaxies. "Weak lensing" is a weak excuse for something that would obviously be caused by strong lensing.
    (cont'd)

  54. Pt. 3: I am not convinced these arcs are more distant, gravitationally distorted galaxies. What they are, I don't know. But I do not believe a diffuse mass, distributed over a couple hundred million light years could have anything like that kind of effect on more distant light sources. Furthermore, if some invisible mass could do that, then why doesn't it completely obliterate the cluster galaxies themselves, which are supposedly in the center of that mass?

  55. I am skeptical of the evidence as well. I do not believe enough care has been taken to rule out ordinary matter and other possible undiscovered cosmological effects or observational anomalies before rushing to career-enhancing, grant-inducing, popular-media-stimulating, new magical stuff.
    Where you opt for cold macro-objects, I tend more toward gas and dust. But both may be causes. I believe dark matter, (as well as string theory and multiverses), will go the way of the luminiferous ether.

  56. personally I doubt the existence of dark matter, at least in the amount propagated by the current standard modell. But, as I do think that one should not dismiss an argument before he fully understood it, I am willing to learn about it.
    Personal objections or expectations should not play any role here.

  57. "But, as I do think that one should not dismiss an argument before he fully understood it, I am willing to learn about it."
    Me too. I am skeptical of the evidence and have seen over the last few years how some scientists have rushed toward fame on the merits of what I believe to be inadequately validated hypotheses.
    I love science and am always afraid of theories being too widely promoted and then discredited. This is bad for science and gives ammunition to creationists.
    (cont'd)

  58. Pt. 2. My "personal" bias in this it is that I HOPE my suspicions are unfounded. I would love for such a discovery to be true and would like to put my doubts to rest.
    I also trust that if my doubts are legitimate, that others with real credentials in this field will stand up and make their objections known through peer review. Since this hasn't happened, to my knowledge, I am somewhat comforted that my suspicions may be incorrect and all have good explanations.
    I care only about the truth.

  59. I agree. The point I was trying to make though, was that the first step should always be the attempt to understand a theory before criticizing it. I consider myself not to be in the right position to question the standard model, as I don't understand it completely. You might be correct with your assumption, I'm just not the one who can decide that.
    Regarding the Scientific method, I think it is brilliant and those creationists who take it for their cause don't understand it, so I ignore them.

  60. So far the scientific method of thesis, hypothesis and theory is the best method we know to ensure scientific progress, blending out personal belief. Just because some underachieving bible-belt lunatics think believing is of more value than knowing, doesn't give us a valid reason to change that.
    We just have to stop listening to people who just lack the knowledge to know what they are saying/preaching.

  61. I'm totally with you on that. But having seen some of the evidence, I have a "fishy" feeling about this. Dark matter does not seem to be getting subjected to the same standards of evidence as say, black holes.
    I see no theoretical framework for the existence, nature, and origin of dark matter. I see no actual direct detection of the stuff. Everything about it seems to fly in the face of what we know about the physical Universe, so the evidence MUST be impressive. So far, I do not believe it is.

  62. I see your point. I do think that it is bad practice to take an unproven thesis and to build your whole work on the assumption that it will be proven some day, giving you an edge over those who waited for the proof to be found.

    I am sure there are tons of flaws in the current standard modell, but all in all it is probably the closest thing to understanding the universe we have so far.
    like a wise man once said: "the standard modell might be wrong, but if it is, it is damn good wrong"

  63. I'm trying to remember the highly reputed physicist at the end of the 19th century who, somewhat to the consternation of ground-breakers in atomic theory, steadfastly refused to sign on to the idea until all his objections were satisfied. Finally, he capitulated.
    I think we need more people like that in science. I mean HOW, after all, did Wakefield get his crap published in "Lancet"? HOW did Targ & Puthoff get their Geller nonsense in "Science"?
    We need some Randi-minded astro-physicists.

  64. Agreed…. Eventhough one should not make the mistake of seeing Science as a scientific magazine. Considering how often they published articles just because they looked scientific just to find out that it was a pile of crap in the first place, they should probably rename themselves to Science-Fiction.. but there probably already is a magazine with that name…

  65. Good to hear from you again. Long time no see.
    No, it wasn't Mach. I'll keep trying to figure it out. It was a really big name in late 19th century physics, but darned if I can remember it.

  66. I suppose the magazines publishing scientific research are fighting for an audience, making the same mistake other papers made before: they want to be the first to publish "the discovery" of the century. In some parts it's our mistake for celebrating some scientists as rockstars, while others live in anonymity.
    I totally agree, that these things don't belong into any scientific field. It undermines the argument while the argument itself should be all that counts.

  67. i know this is a few months old but…….where can i get that glass? Love SFN. I just subscribed and have spent two days watching trying to catch up with everyone else….Thanks!!!!!

  68. Q:
    The darkmatter-theory originates from F. Zwicky
    more than 100 years ago,
    and since then there are discovered many objects
    in the universe that had been unknown before:

    Quasars, pulsars, red- and brown dwarfstars,
    stars that don't emit visible light,
    rogueplanets and many exoplanets…
    …so a lot of “dark matter”
    has already been discovered?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *