Astronomers Find Star-Less Galaxy 608
Wohngebaeudeversicherung writes "Astronomers have discovered a galaxy about 50 million lightyears away from earth that appears to be composed entirly of dark matter. This galaxy, dubbed VIRGOHI21 is rotating like a real galaxy, at speeds only explainable through massive amounts of matter, thought no single visible star could be detected."
Let's help them out (Score:5, Funny)
YEah, how about the lenscap (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's help them out (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let's help them out (Score:3, Funny)
Lenny: Its a secret?
Carl: Shutup!
The stars are all there - (Score:4, Funny)
How appropriate... (Score:5, Funny)
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
Brilliant.
Re:How appropriate... (Score:4, Funny)
>
> That's no galaxy, that's a space station!
Wrong movie. Both of ya stop it!
"My god! It's full of st... no, wait a minute"
- Arthur V. Fark, HI21: A Galactic Oddity
Re:How appropriate... (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't it be rather "dull"?
Meanwhile, on VIRGOHI21... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile, on VIRGOHI21... (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of a good Hitchhikers quote:
"Man has always assumed that he is more intelligent than dolphins because he has achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But, conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."
Re:Meanwhile, on VIRGOHI21... (Score:4, Funny)
So his wrong what?
Re:Meanwhile, on VIRGOHI21... (Score:4, Informative)
Any astronomer could tell you that the Milky Way does have dark matter. The rotational curve of the galaxy does not match what we would expect from a purely baryonic galaxy of our size. The closest thing to a baryonic "galaxy" would be a globular cluster.
Shit, I am such a f*cking geek.
JMD
Re:Meanwhile, on VIRGOHI21... (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody knows that Snickers is way better... lots more dark matter!
Pan
The Speed of Dark (Score:4, Funny)
Should't that be 50 million darkyears?
Re:The Speed of Dark (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Speed of Dark (Score:3, Funny)
The Speed of Dark is known: Management. (Score:3, Funny)
FYI (Score:5, Informative)
Another explanation? (Score:5, Funny)
At least now we know (Score:3, Funny)
Intelligent Life! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intelligent Life! (Score:5, Interesting)
Energy is conserved (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find most interesting about the "dark galaxy" is that it's got plenty of hydrogen but it somehow has not managed to form stars.
Re:Intelligent Life! (Score:3)
Fourteen years to be exact. But hey, at least we got a new vacuum cleaner out of the deal that never clogs. Ever.
Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this what they've been telling us to look for for years now - the entire energy output of a galaxy caught and channelled for use by an intelligence that has spread throughout it's own galaxy?
Re: Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:5, Informative)
> Isn't this what they've been telling us to look for for years now - the entire energy output of a galaxy caught and channelled for use by an intelligence that has spread throughout it's own galaxy?
Such spheres still have to radiate heat, or else the inside of the sphere would become as hot as the star. The Wikipedia article says it would show up as stars emitting radiation with the blackbody spectrum.
Re: Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:5, Interesting)
It increased thermal conversion effeciency by 50%, making me the envy of all the other Spheriods.
Re: Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, here are the design calculations so you can visit your girl - a sun-like star puts out 386,000,000,000,000,000,000 MW, dividing by the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s) yields the force of about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 kgm/s^2. Since a sun-like star has a mass of 2x10^30 kg, your acceleration is 5x10^-12 m/s2.
So it may take a while...
Re: Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (Score:5, Funny)
Quick Thinking! (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I think articles with discoveries this exciting need to be written with more enthusiasm [theonion.com]
Re:Quick Thinking! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, Ok, you may have spotted that galaxy immediatly, but I guess there are many less experienced readers who whould have had a hard time to find it if it hadn't been circled.
What really happened: (Score:5, Funny)
"Um, Bill? The lenscap is still on..."
Re:What really happened: (Score:4, Funny)
They are "visible light filters". After all, neutrinos, gamma rays, etc. can still pass.
Re:What really happened: (Score:3, Informative)
In space, it's unlikely for something that large to be dense enough to significantly block incoming light - instead, I gather it was detected through the emission of radio waves by gas clouds in this 'galaxy'.
I presume the process of discovery was that they found a large, rotating dis
I've figured out dark matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, that's an enormous (and highly unlikely) exaggeration, but I *have* thought of an interesting possibility. A Dyson Sphere surrounding several stars (or in a Type 3 civilization, an entire galaxy) would block visible light - the problem is it would glow in the infrared, so it wouldn't really be dark. Black holes are dark, but they tend to fling stuff around, and matter sucked into them gives off bursts of energy before they disappear.
The solution: a dark bubble. At the center of our galaxy there is a supermassive black hole, which is (according to some estimates) roughly three million solar masses. A civilization putting a bubble around it would have 1 (earth) gravity a little beyond the orbit of Pluto, perhaps 40-45 A.U. or so. The problem is that you still would need to stick some stars around it to supply energy, and a Klemperer rosette would be pretty noticeable.
Well, light falling onto a blackhole blue shifts, increasing its energy. Increase the bubble enough (remember, we're talking a civilization that can harness the energy of a galaxy), and the mass of the bubble itself starts to warp space around it. There comes a point where the size of the bubble and the mass that makes it up can be just under the Schwarzschild limit - a bit more massive and it would be a black hole - even without a central singularity. For humans, we'd want a bubble that has a surface gravity equal to earth's, and a blue-shifted energy equal to the average output from our sun.
As a back-of-the envelope calculation, using v^2=2*g*R, where v is the escape velocity, g is the gravitational attraction at the earth's surface, and R is the radius from the center of mass, and setting v=c (the speed of light) for the maximum size, you get a bubble with a diameter just a bit under a light-year across (354 light days, if I figured correctly). The surface area would be about 3 square light-years, 2.6 x 10^26 square kilometers, or 5.2 x 10^17 times the surface area of the earth. The mass would be equivalent to 1.5 trillion suns - roughly twice the mass of our galaxy. Assuming you use buckytubes as the material of choice, you'd have a shell 7000 kilometers thick of solid buckminsterfullerene.
Of course, this is the absolute maximum size and mass just before it becomes a black hole, so the actual construct would be a bit smaller and less massive, balancing surface gravity and blue-shifted energy hitting the surface. You'd also want to carve out mountain ranges and oceans for a bit of variety - a galactic Kansas would be kind of boring. For safety reasons, you would have to stick these bubbles in the empty space between galaxies, or just use all of the mass in one large galaxy (you'd have to be careful, though, to keep relativistic rocks from flying at the completed project). You'd have a sky that would look kind of like a slow-moving aurora, perhaps -- infrared would be shifted into visible light, visible stars would have their peak shifted to ultraviolet -- especially since the gravitational warping would slow down time considerably compared to the rest of the galaxy.
To detect them, you'd have to aim telescopes at the "empty" parts of the sky and see if there was any gravitational lensing. If something was there that was far too massive to be a neutron star but didn't have the characteristics of a supermassive black hole, that could be a sign of it. The largest ones would have the gravitational mass of a large galaxy, so if a supercluster appears to be missing a galaxy's worth of stars that stellar motions demand, it might not be exotic matter but instead bubbles of normal matter from some vast engineering project.
Of course, it might be too early in the evolution of the universe for a type 3 civilization to appear, or you might not be able to make a buckytube bubble big enough that would also support its own weight, so exotic forms of matter might still be necessary. One thing's for certain, though - a bubble like this would make Ringworld look as spacious as a phone booth.
Re:I've figured out dark matter (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I've figured out dark matter (Score:5, Funny)
Galactic Kansas would, however, be an awesome name for a rock band.
Re:I've figured out dark matter (Score:3, Informative)
No, light reaching our eyes after travelling near a black hole is redshifted, decreasing its energy. See this Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (search for "red-shifted") if you're unable to reason about it yourself: intuitively, a light wave coming at us from the vicinity of a black hole (where the gravity is significantly stronger at the "tail" of the light wave than at the "head" of the light wave) would be stretched out, not squished together.
Re:I've figured out dark matter (Score:3, Informative)
so there's no problem with that plan at all.
Re:I've figured out dark matter (Score:3, Informative)
You just missed the class. (Score:3, Informative)
Earth is pre-Type I; Sagan apparently calculated us at about 0.7 on the Kardashev Scale [wikipedia.org].
Twinkle twinkle little star... (Score:4, Funny)
How I wonder where you are.
Lightyears away in VIRGOHI21 so far
Oh why can't I see you, you naughty naughty star.
Crunchy Candy Shell (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, though.... Just because no light gets out doesn't mean no light is produced.
FYI: What is Dark Matter (Score:5, Informative)
The concept of Dark Matter evolved from the "missing mass problem". You can estimate the amount of mass in a cluster of galaxies based on the motions of other objects around the object in question. When you compare this mass to the mass based on the total brightness (visible mass) of the galaxy, you can find a huge discrepancy. This is the "missing mass".
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] provides more information.
Why doesn't this work... (Score:5, Funny)
IRS Auditor: We've added up all of the income your employers have reported for you and it is much greater than what is reported on your tax form. How do you explain that.
Me: While you can usually detect income through tax forms, some types simply don't register. I believe that it is called...dark income.
IRS Auditor: I believe that it is called...tax evasion.
Me: gulp...
Get the paper here (Score:3, Informative)
More detailed info (Score:5, Informative)
Find it here [adelaide.edu.au].
What? No pics? (Score:3, Funny)
The source of dark matter explained (Score:5, Funny)
Congressman (skeptical): Well, I dunno...I don't really see anything there.
Astronomer: Oh, one moment...let me circle it for you!
Congressman: Yes, yes I see it!
Astronomer: Now I was wondering, Congressman...how much additional funding might we get for this discovery?
Congressman: Hm. I'm not sure we have additional funds for such an admittedly amazing find. Now, if you had TWO dark matter galaxies, we'd have something to discuss.
Astronomer (uncapping pen): Funny you should mention that...
To get this out of the way: (Score:5, Informative)
Can't dark matter just be brown dwarves or black holes or something? Why do scientists postulate crazy exotic invisible particles?
Dark matter [wikipedia.org] is postulated to come in two kinds, Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). MACHOs are things like brown dwarves, etc.; WIMPs are the new kind of matter. We have already detected some MACHOs through gravitational microlensing experiments (looking for them by how they gravitationally deflect light). But if all the dark matter were MACHOs or something else mundane and baryonic, we would have detected more of them by now. That leaves WIMPs. Also, MACHOs and WIMPs have different physical properties (e.g., they cluster differently, and thus seed the formation of the large-scale galactic clusters we see today in different manners), and an all-MACHO universe doesn't cluster right, though it works out if you let some WIMPs into the mixture.
Ordinary neutrinos don't do the trick, either; we evidently need some new kind of particle. We don't know what WIMPs are, but some have postulated axions, neutralinos or other supersymmetric particles, WIMPZILLAs, solitons, sterile neutriono (that only interact gravitationally),
Dark matter is unscientific; it can't be tested or falsified.
Dark matter theories can be tested indirectly by observing the different predictions they make for galactic rotation curves, early-universe structure formation, cosmological expansion, etc. Already such observations have excluded a number of dark matter theories. And there are experiments underway that try to directly detect them, similarly to how we detect neutrinos.
Dark matter is just epicycles all over again, a fudge factor to preserve a wrong theory of gravity.
Once upon a time, irregularities were noted in the orbit of Uranus. It could have been postulated that the laws of gravity were wrong. Instead, it was postulated that an unseen bulk of matter was perturbing Uranus's orbit. Eventually, that bulk of matter was seen: the planet Neptune.
On the other hand, once upon a time, irregularities were noted in the orbit of Mercury. It was postulated that maybe a new planet caused them (Vulcan), but that turned out to be wrong; instead, a new theory of gravity was needed (general relativity).
The moral: you can attempt to explain away the observations with either dark matter or a new theory of gravity; both are scientifically valid approach. The problem with the latter is that it has proven extraordinarily difficult to produce a modified theory of gravity that is consistent with all observations, whereas there are dark matter theories that appear to do the job. Believe me, scientists don't ignore the possibility of a new theory of gravity any more than they ignore the possibility of a new type of matter; it's just that new theories of gravity don't seem to work as well as new theories of matter in explaining the observations.
What about MOND?
MOdified Newtonian Dynamics [umd.edu] is the leading candidate for a non-dark matter alternative, modifying the laws of gravity. (Note that this page is by MOND's inventor, and may be biased.) However, it has had trouble with a number of observational tests; you can search the astro-ph arXiv [arxiv.org] for critiques of MOND. In particular, although it seems to work for galactic rotation curves, it's hard to get it to also work for cosmological expansion and structure formation. It's also very difficult to make it into a theory compatible with observed tests of relativity.
What about Bekenstein's MOND theory?
Bekenstein recently proposed a relativistic version of MOND called
Link to the science article (Score:3, Informative)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0502312 [lanl.gov]
(Note: Be on guard for confusing astronomical conventions, like measuring almost everything logrithmically with decreasing numbers representing increasing brightnesses.)
To sum up: Astronomers discovered a large mass of rotating Hydrogen gas towards the Virgo Cluster. From the gas dynamics they were able to estimate the mass of the system, and found it to be comparible to the mass of a galaxy. When they went to look at the optical light given off by stars, they found they couldn't find nearly the amount they should for a normal galaxy, hence the 'star-less galaxy' title.
Current Cold Dark Matter (CMD) models of galaxy formation predict that these 'star-less' masses of dark matter should exist in the universe. While other candidates have been discovered in the past, this is the only (currently) viable candidate now known. If it holds up to subsequent analysis, it will provide observational support for the CDM formation models.
A few quick points --
- Dark matter is simply non-luminous matter (matter that does not emit light at any wavelength).
- Yes, black holes are a form of dark matter (baryonic).
- No, this is not an 'anti-matter' galaxy.
- Current Dark Matter theories lean towards it having a non-baryonic source (i.e. not being made up of 'normal' matter).
But is it really Dark Matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be unusual that none of this hydrogen has ignited in a fusion reaction, but that doesn't change the fact that hydrogen atoms are baryonic matter, quite common here on earth. (There are quadrillions of them in my body right now.)
Later, TFA says "according to cosmological models, dark matter is five times more abundant than the ordinary (baryonic) matter that makes up everything we can see and touch."
So this object is "dark" in the sense that it doesn't emit visible light, but it's not Dark Matter.
Or am I missing something here?
A collection of Matrioshka Brains (Score:3, Interesting)
This would qualify as a Kardashev Type III civilization.
But don't suggest this to the astronomers or astrophysicists because they are so friggen sure that the universe is *dead* and nothing they observe could be explained by the activity of advanced technological civilizations... They obviously haven't read any of the work by the Lineweaver group pointing out that 75% of the stars in the galactic habitable zone are older (in some cases much older) than the Sun. [Ref: astro-ph/0401024 [arxiv.org]].
Roll the open source and nanotechnology development efforts forward by a few hundred million years and project what the universe would look like...
Re:Black holes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, is it possible that there was once a star, but now there isn't.
Could they be rotating around something cold and solid, or something not burning bright enough to be visible at these distances
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, black holes may be bright in X-rays and other wavelengths. They should've been detected a long ago, if it were a full of BHs.
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Insightful)
What this tells us is that the density of visible stars in that galaxy (assuming a normal distribution of magnitudes) is low enough that we cannot detect any of them. Someone else care to do the math and tell us what that density threshold is?
When you see "stars" in distant galaxies like Andromeda, what you're really seeing are clusters of stars, though perhaps modern technology has allowed us to resolve single very bright stars, I'm not sure.
As for something blocking our view... that's unlikely, as the dark galaxy was detected by viewing its hydrogen signature in radio wavelengths, so there's no problem seeing it in the correct wavelength.
Most likely (my untrained opinion), this is a galaxy composed of either very small stars or very old (burned out) stars. I'm sure there are good models for describing either. In the first case, for example, I would think that a low initial density of stellar material (mostly hydrogen) would lead to the formation of smaller-than-average stars.
What I think this observation proves is that galactic magnitudes can dip below our viewing threshold in the visible spectrum, and therefore any estimates of the mass of the universe based on visual surveys can be discounted. This makes the closed theory of universal expansion far more likely (e.g. that the universe will expand to a certain point, and then begin to contract until it collapses back into a singularity from which a new Big Bang would arise).
Ok, real astronomers ready your red ink!
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Insightful)
This image and the TERAbytes of data like it that have been collected over such a short time are testimony to why losing Hubble is going to be such a tragedy -- whether or not we understand or accept the reasons it's going to happen.
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
However, your point about hubble is mis-placed. Hubble can't resolve this kind of image any better than ground-based AO scopes at this point (not because the atmosphere poses no obsticle, but because AO allows better than default resolution, and technology has advanced since Hubble was sent up).
As others have pointed out to me here on Slashdot, the reason that Hubble is useful is that certain wavelengths simply don't get through our atmosphere, so while pictures like the one you link to could be taken from the ground today, a great deal of research cannot.
Personally, I'd love to see a ground-based scope on the far side of the moon to replace hubble, but I'm probably just dreaming.
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
2) The numbers are already done for us. From the paper: 'We conclude that there is no optical counterpart to VIRGOHI21 down to a B-band surface-brightness limit of 27.5 B mag/arcsec^2. This is less than 1 solar luminosity pc^-2, giving a maximum luminosity in stars of less than 10^8 solar luminosities if a diameter of 16 kpc is assumed.'
3) M31 isn't far away at all. In fact, its the closest large galaxy to the MW. HST can resolve individual stars there, allowing us to measure the brightnesses and construct helpful "colour-magnitude diagrams" for instance.
4) No. Read the paper [adelaide.edu.au]. They argue that the low surface density of gas prevents fragmentation of hte gas, and hence stars not forming.
5) This is total crap.
Re:Black holes? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Black holes? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
If it was a black hole, it would be detected by the movement of visible objects around it, or x-ray and gamma-ray bursts from acceleration jets and from energy emitted by the accretion disk.
Dark Matter is simply "missing matter", or matter that cannot be detected through emitted radiation. It can, however, be detected through its (gravitational) effects on surrounding bodies.
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Black holes? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
Black holes shine (at extremely high energies) because of the matter falling into the accretion disk. That traffic jam of matter that's fallen deep into a gravity well heats it up to phenomenal temperatures. The disks are part of what you might call a black hole system, but they are no more part of the black hole than the earth is part of the sun.
Re:Black holes? (Score:5, Informative)
The other form of radiation emitted by black holes is Hawking Radiation. Space is teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs that are constantly created and annhilated. In the vicinity of a black hole, one member of the pair can be sucked in (consequently annhilating its evil twin inside the black hole) while the other escapes. This gives the impression of the black-hole emitting radiation. Hawking came up with this theory when it was found that black-holes have temperature. That would seem preposterous since it means that the black hole was emitting energy, which it shouldn't.
More on Hawking radiation (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. In order for the amount of Hawking radiation to exceed the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the black hole must have a mass significantly less than our sun. A super-massive black hole would emit a miniscule fraction of the CMB, and hence would be black for all intents and purposes.
Actually there's a trinity of ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Black holes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not Black holes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not Black holes (Score:5, Informative)
Similar to galactic rotation curves, galaxy velocities in clusters are too high without large amounts of dark matter.
The best evidence at this stage probably comes from the microwave background acoustic peaks. The amplitudes of the second and third peaks depend on the amount of baryonic matter (second peak) and the total amount of matter (third peak), and indicate about six times as much non-bayonic matter as baryonic matter. We still don't know what it is, but know how much there is to two significant figures.
I've alerady linked to it already in this thread, but I'll do it again because it is a very nice pedagogical website about these results. Check out Wayne Hu's webapages. [uchicago.edu]
Re:Not Black holes (Score:4, Informative)
The universe is almost certainly exactly flat. Flatness is expected from inflation, but, more tellingingly, is the fact that if it weren't exactly flat (to within 40 orders of magnitude), it shouldn't be close to anything flat today.
Re:Not Black holes (Score:4, Informative)
The descreased amplitude of the second peak arises from an effect called baryon loading explained here [uchicago.edu]. The suppression arises from a coupling of the barynons to the plasma prior to recombination. The non-baryonic matter is transparent.
Re: Name submission... (Score:5, Funny)
>
Nope, Goatse Galaxies have Goatse Stars [nasa.gov]
Re: Name submission... (Score:5, Funny)
-
Re:Anyone Question the Existence of Dark Matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was easy to disprove the existence of aether with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Had that experiment not been possible it would have been very premature to jump to the conclusion that there is no aether. When it comes to dark matter, there is no easy experiment to disprove its existence and so it would be very rash to conclude that our understanding of gravity, which has worked extremely well for us for hundreds of years, is wrong.
Re:Anyone Question the Existence of Dark Matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that our understanding of gravity is that we have no clue what it is. However, our understanding of the effect of gravity has been working fine. The effect of gravity and gravity are two different things. It could very well be that there is absolutely no such thing as gravity and the effect of gravity is actually a side-effect multi-dimensional distortion, or subatomic radiation, or pure heavenly magic. That is why there is a 'theory of gravity' and a set of 'laws of the force of gravity'.
Re:Anyone Question the Existence of Dark Matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? you define gravity as the singular instance of an apple falling? It seems perhaps you're using a definition of the word that doesn't correspond to common usage. Most people consider gravity to be a universal force that causes each particle of matter to attract every other particle of matter in a relationship corresponding to the mass of the particles and the inverse square of the distance between them. Acc
Re:Anyone Question the Existence of Dark Matter? (Score:3, Informative)
How?
By observing supernova. The immense amount of light given off by a super novae explosion actually illuminates this "Dark Matter" which is merely diffuse hydrogen uneavenly spread throughout the universe and allows us to actually see parts of it for a small period of time. "Proving" the exis
Re: Dark matter is sciences god (Score:4, Insightful)
> ark matter is just another word for "we have no idea"
I think you meant to say that you have no idea.
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious scientist DO say when they have no idea.
Dark matter indicates that there is a whole field of physics out there and that we're in the state of peaking through the keyhole atm, before opening the door. BTW, this is what the article states, just worded differently when it says something about starting to understand things.
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, if he RTFA, he'd note that it was actually detected by radiotelescope, so there is no question
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's get it straight (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not think the word "theory" means what you think it means. A scientific theory is a thesis that has been proven by numerous experiments, has many peer-reviewed papers published exploring it, and is generally accepted as "truth" by the scientific community.
A (layman/religious) "theory"
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:5, Informative)
Like heliocentricism, for example? Oh, wait.. wrong way round, the church battled that one for 300 years, finally pardoning Galileo for his 'crimes' in 1992 [devine-ent.com].
How about evolution.. oh, wait, no.. the fundamentalists [drdino.com] and literalists [creationism.org] won't have any of that.
Okay, how about something really simple - the lightning conductor. Oh, no, wait.. churches originally considered lightning conductors blasphemy [atheistalliance.org] as they attempted to counter god's will - some went as far as to blame them for earthquakes.
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry if I sound aggressive. I'm not dismissing the idea of the supremacy of Christianity as an ideology altogether, I just find it very, very arrogant that someone would support that without extremely good scientific proof.
The grandparent didn't express his views with good manners, I'll give you that - but the core idea of his post is still true: The church has through the years made up 'truths' and tried suppress scientific research that tests those 'truths'. Isaac Newton or other christian scientists might have believed in the scientific method, but it seems that the church as an entity does not...
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't that everyone who is religious has a closed mind; there are religious people with open minds (even more now that it won't get your burned for heresy). The problem is that some people, who are *very* closed minded use religion as an excuse to believe- or not believe - arbitrary things. I can't say for sure whether these bottom of the barrel "I'm right no matter what" types are products of religion or are merely drawn to it, but I can say that they annoy me, that they fester unchecked in many places, and that they successfully supplant knowledge of reality with fantasy and falsehood to further their agendas.
>>That'a matter for discussion but Religion most certainly does not mean an automatic close minded approach.
True enough in an academic sense, but in the US at least, church and politics are closely tied, and "faith" is frequently used to close people's minds to one thing and/or focus their minds on another thing. I'm not by this saying that religion exists only for that purpose (real religion is imho not about that) but that in practice, it happens, and in my experience, a lot all the time.
>>There is even a school of thought that says without Christianity a lot of Scientific discoveries would have been a really late in coming. Since it's largely respobsible for driving out superstion in a lot of cultures.
Drove out superstition? So, leprechauns are superstition, but angels aren't? Looks to me like christianity replaced one superstition with another. Christianity may (for the sake of argument) be a more advanced form of superstition than faeries and elves and dwarves, but it's still not literal. One may be able to "interpret" religion to find guidance with your life, but the literal view is blatantly superstitious. How is one god better than 10? How are two magical, hidden worlds more real than ghosts walking this world? Sorry to have to ask you that, but I find it outrageously foolish to state that today's religion is less absurd than yesterday's just because the flavor changed.
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:3, Insightful)
>>If you're attacking religion at least get your facts strait.
Often the religious people don't know anything about Aquinas or Descartes. They don't know about philosophy or ethics. They just want to disparage science. These people are poor partners for level headed conversation. Making assertions in a controlled, adult manner won't be repaid with thoughful responses. Instead they spin and spit venom.
>>The pro-religious pos
Re:Dark matter is sciences god (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in many forms of religion, it more or less comes down to a recognition of forces and powers that are beyond your understanding. If by "being" you mean "something which is" and by "supernatural" you mean "beyond the purview of human knowledge/understanding", then I suppose what you say is true. Religions tend to talk about "supernatural beings". However, this is not the same as indic
Re:I like the picture (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes I get the feeling that scientists are just fucking with me.
Re:I like the picture (Score:3)
Re:I like the picture (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dark Matter (Score:4, Informative)
All galaxies must spin, otherwise they would collapse.
As for how they tell how much it is spinning -- one side is spinning towards us, the other is spinning away. Thus the spectrum of radiation from the side spinning toward us is blue-shifted relative to the side spinning away from us. By measuring the amount of blue-shift they can figure out the speed at which it rotates.
Re:Dark Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"neutral hydrogen gas" != HI (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dark Matter (Score:3)
ICANN for example...
Re:How can it be detected (Score:3, Informative)
--LWM
I call moron (Score:3, Informative)
So where is the false color image of this galaxy?
The availability or otherwise of a false color image reflects only on how the researchers chose to present their data; has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the galaxy. In this particular case, it would in fact be unusual to present a false color image, since radio data are more commonly illustrated using contour maps.
How do they know it's rotating like a galaxy?
From the radio observations, which pick up 21cm emission from cold, neutral hydr