New study confirms the presence of dark matter in the inner part of the Milky Way

February 9, 2015, Technical University Munich
The image displays the rotation curve tracers used in the publication over a photograph of the disc of the Milky Way as seen from the Southern Hemisphere. The tracers are colour-coded in blue or red according to their relative motion with respect to the Sun. The spherically symmetric blue halo illustrates the dark matter distribution inferred from the analysis. Credit: Background photo: Serge Brunier / NASA

The Universe is pervaded by a mysterious form of matter, dubbed dark matter, about five times more abundant than the ordinary matter—made of atoms—we are familiar with. Its existence in galaxies was robustly established in the 1970s. Scientists now obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part of our Galaxy, the Milky Way.

The ubiquitous presence of in the universe is today a central tenet in modern cosmology and astrophysics. Its existence in was robustly established in the 1970s with a variety of techniques, including the measurement of the rotation speed of gas and stars, which provides a way to effectively 'weigh' the and determine its total mass. These measurements showed that the only accounts for a fraction of the total weight, the predominant part is delivered by dark matter.

Applying this technique to our own Galaxy is possible, and the existence of dark matter in the outer parts of the Milky Way is well ascertained. But up to now it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions.

The diameter of our Galaxy is about 100,000 lightyears. Our Solar System is located at a distance of about 26,000 light years from the center. Coming closer to the center of our galaxy it becomes increasingly difficult to measure the rotation of gas and stars with the needed precision.

Dark matter in our cosmic neighborhood

Now scientists from the Technische Universität München (TUM), Stockholm University, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, ICTP South American Institute for Fundamental Research, São Paulo and University of Amsterdam have obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part the Milky Way, including at the Earth's location and in our own 'cosmic neighborhood'.

In a first step they created the most complete compilation of published measurements of the motion of gas and stars in the Milky Way. Then they compared the measured rotation speed with that expected under the assumption that only luminous matter exists in the Galaxy. The comparison clearly showed that the observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us, and between us and the galactic center.

"We know that dark matter is needed in our Galaxy to keep the stars and gas rotating at their observed speeds," says Dr. Miguel Pato, who conducted the analysis at TU München. "However, we still do not know what dark matter is composed of. This is one of the most important science questions of our times."

Predictions with higher reliability

Possessing a very strong statistical evidence, even at small galactocentric distances, the results open a new avenue for the determination of dark matter distribution inside the Galaxy. With future astronomical observations, the method will allow to measure the distribution of dark matter in our Galaxy with unprecedented precision.

"This will permit to refine the understanding of the structure and evolution of our Galaxy. And it will trigger more robust predictions for the many experiments worldwide that search for ," says Miguel Pato, who meanwhile moved to The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics at the Stockholm University.

Explore further: Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

More information: Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way, Fabio Iocco, Miguel Pato, Gianfranco Bertone
Nature Physics, advanced online publication, 9 February 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nphys3237

Related Stories

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Speeding bullet galaxy observed slamming into galaxy cluster

January 16, 2015

(Phys.org)—Researchers working at Europe's XMM-Newton X-ray space telescope have observed a speeding galaxy smashing its way through a galaxy cluster called Abell 4067. They have reported their observations and findings ...

Decoding the gravitational evolution of dark matter halos

January 13, 2015

Researchers at Kavli IPMU and their collaborators have revealed that considering environmental effects such as a gravitational tidal force spread over a scale much larger than a galaxy cluster is indispensable to explain ...

Recommended for you

Scientists produce 3-D chemical maps of single bacteria

November 16, 2018

Scientists at the National Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II)—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory—have used ultrabright x-rays to image single bacteria ...

Quantum science turns social

November 15, 2018

Researchers in a lab at Aarhus University have developed a versatile remote gaming interface that allowed external experts as well as hundreds of citizen scientists all over the world to optimize a quantum gas experiment ...

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

60 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 09, 2015
The only thing they have proof of is that their understanding of the matter involved is flawed. In order to conceal their ignorance they must invent ad hoc fairy dust to allow their models to agree with observational reality.
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2015
After years of fruitless searching, it would seem reasonable to finally admit that dark matter is simply imaginary and move on. But the reasonable course is never selected.
justindadswell
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015
Last year, scientists discovered a burnt out star only 4 light years from Sol(our sun).
How many burnt out stars are there that we can't see.
What % of dark matter do they make up?

I'm convinced there is an opposite to our energy. But there is clearly some parts of the equation we just don't have the ability to measure. Humans are still basically infants.
justindadswell
not rated yet Feb 09, 2015
Getting double posts for some reason, ignore this one.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015
From the above article:
"We know that dark matter is needed in our Galaxy to keep the stars and gas rotating at their observed speeds," says Dr. Miguel Pato, who conducted the analysis at TU München.
We DON'T "know" any such thing, Dr Pato. It is an HYPOTHESIS not yet proven. Please stop perpetuating it as 'fact'.

Lately it has become obvious to many mainstream scientists that too many 'studies' have been 'conducted', and published as 'fact', based only on continuing self-evidently false 'confirmation biased' assumptions and inferences BUILT INTO them even BEFORE they design the 'study' and BEFORE they start their 'analysis'...which makes it yet another exercise in 'confirming' nothing but their 'confirmation BIAS' as to what they already doomed their 'study' to 'confirm'.

So TITLE, SUBSTANCE and CLAIMS of this 'study/article' are of same type as in BICEP2 fiasco. Have they learned nothing, or are they just ignorant of it? Or is 'publish or perish' still the driver?
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good too again, thanks for asking.

You ever been to the Mardi Gras here? We are gearing up for it and having several parades more each day. Hooyeei, you should see the Mardi Gras Indians if you never did before. Each Krewe got their own parade with their own Big Chief, Spy-Boy and Flag-Boy and floats most of the bands are provided by the high schools and colleges.. They are the sight to see I tell you. We got no parades parading today so if you want to drop me a note I can answer him. I will tell you about my Mardi Gras special suit and hat I wear for parading me.
Jeffhans1
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
I really hope they are accounting for the net magnetic attraction of the trillions of EM fields that exist in every active Star and most large planets. The magnetically bound hydrogen clouds seem to conduct the existing fields further allowing the entire galaxy to be more closely bound than gravity alone could account for.
Stylz
4 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
Why can't dark matter be rogue planets, asteroids, comets, ice, and the rest of the matter we can't see on the outskirts of our own solar system let alone around stars 100,000 light years away?
Uncle Ira
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good too again, thanks for asking.

You ever been to the Mardi Gras here? We are gearing up for it and having several parades more each day. Hooyeei, you should see the Mardi Gras Indians if you never did before. Each Krewe got their own parade with their own Big Chief, Spy-Boy and Flag-Boy and floats most of the bands are provided by the high schools and colleges.. They are the sight to see I tell you. We got no parades parading today so if you want to drop me a note I can answer him. I will tell you about my Mardi Gras special suit and hat I wear for parading me.


P.S. for you Really-Skippy. I was trying to be nice to you but after I see what you wrote on the other article page I take it back.

No more Mr-Nice-Guy-To-The-Really-Skippy with me anymore again. Don't mess with me Cher, I'll cut you if you stand and choot you if you run. Why you not just play with your toes book so you don't get hurt.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
Poor Uncle Ira bot-voting idiot. This is a SCIENCE site! His bot-voting, personality drivel and skewing/sabotaging discussions/people should NOT be tolerated (especially by supposed "smart peoples" who made use of him to further their own obvious trolling, ego-driven agendas having nothing to do with objective science/discussion, but all to do with their own CONFIRMATION BIAS and IGNORANCE based on what they have been inculcated with and defend in spite of OBJECTIVE reality I tried to inform them about for years).

Well, they've come a cropper with their mod-troll-gang abuses, anti-science/humanity tactics, in lieu of listening/learning. It's now dawning on them that they were wrong and me right. Which leaves Idiot-Ira without his "smart peoples" mod-troll-gang to applaud his idiocy.

This is a truncated sentence of Ira's posted to Returners elsewhere:
Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition...
Perfectly describes Ira-bot! :)
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015
The fact that they put the dark matter in a spherical halo is evidence that they do not know how this works, because a disk of matter is the shape that is needed to produce the observed stellar orbits, and a disk of matter is exactly what we observe.

They are not correctly modeling the matter which we see, therefore they don't even know what the alleged "halo" would look like even if it did exist.

This is shamefully bad science.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015
It should be easier to determine the correct mass of matter in our galaxy based on the gravitation at the center. It seems the rotational speed of stars and other visible matter could be explained by the speed of revolution and mass of the SMBH at the center. I would think if there was dark matter out there, it would slow both revolution and rotation, or coalesce with visible matter. Why try to explain something made up and just explain what we can see and measure
abecedarian
3 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2015
The caption on the photo has me thinking, and I'm not sure what it all means, so someone help me out.

If the color is indicative of red or blue shift in spectra, we're moving away from most of what's on the left of the image and towards most of what's on the right, right? Why is there a bias giving more blue to the left of center and less red on the right?

But, since we're all part of the same system, and this "dark matter" and "dark energy" are required to explain how galaxies somehow don't flay apart, shouldn't our motion relative to other bodies within the galaxy be net-Zero, i.e. little to no shift at all?

Assuming the image shows red and blue based on red/blue shift, why are we being increasingly distanced from the things on the left (red shifted), and moving increasingly closer to those thing on the right (blue shifted)... for the most part?

Why aren't those shifts balanced around the center of the galaxy?

Not trolling; seriously want it explained to me.
gculpex
not rated yet Feb 09, 2015
True, why aren't the red and blue dots vary in relation to the different velocities? This picture is worthless......
abecedarian
4 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2015
Okay, wait... ignore my last post. After some gazing, I can see the red / blue dot distribution is mostly symmetrical. I still wonder why it would appear the distance between us and the stuff on the left appears to be extending while the distance between us and the stuff on the left appears to be contracting... both with some interesting stuff towards the edges.

Anyhow.

The spherically symmetric blue halo illustrates the dark matter distribution inferred from the analysis.


Why would a 'spiral' galaxy, which would appear oblate from an edge-on view, have a 'spherical' central mass? Shouldn't that mass be oblate as well? I could even conceive it should be toroid so the vectors ... now I'm talking over my own head.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2015
There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

Dark matter has mass. Dark matter physically occupies three dimensional space. Dark matter is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.
MattHarg
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
Closer to understanding #DarkMatter
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
Why would a 'spiral' galaxy, which would appear oblate from an edge-on view, have a 'spherical' central mass? Shouldn't that mass be oblate as well? I could even conceive it should be toroid so the vectors ... now I'm talking over my own head.


They are doing something wrong. It's as simple as that.

I have shown countless times that the correct configuration to produce the observed motion of stars is a disk of matter, NOT a sphere.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2015
Why can't dark matter be rogue planets, asteroids, comets, ice, and the rest of the matter we can't see on the outskirts of our own solar system let alone around stars 100,000 light years away?

Good question: Working from the assumption that our solar system is rather typical - where almost all of the mass is concentrated in the sun (even taking the Oort cloud into account):
http://en.wikiped..._by_size
you can see that even if there were a considerable amount of rogue planets it wouldn't add up to much (certainly not to the huge percentage needed to keep everything moving the way it is).
vlaaing peerd
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
For DM-doubters: they found more gravity in the Milky Way than an amount of matter to account for it and quite accurately know to pinpoint where it is.

I'm quite fine with people not accepting DM (well, actually I'm not), just know scientists are absolutely sure there too much gravity and usually it's nothing else than matter that causes it. That latter is simply not debatable.

I'd like to know what they think it is, unseen matter still seems a lot more plausible than invisible fairy dust.
dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
vlaaing peerd,
... just know scientists are absolutely sure there too much gravity ...


They have no such knowledge. They know that our observations of the movement of stars, etc. in galaxies are too fast to remain in those galaxies according to our models of gravity. Rather than seeking to determine why our models do not predict our observations, we have instead created imaginary matter to normalize our observation to our models.

Scientists have spent many years and countless resources looking for an imaginary substance which we already know we simply created in our own minds.

Not a single bit of dark matter has ever been discovered anywhere. We have not found any of it in our colliders. It does not fit in our standard model.

When we observe our solar system, not a single ounce of dark matter is needed to explain what we see. Yet we insist the the universe is filled with this imaginary stuff.

In this area, we left science behind a long time ago.
moka
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
about dark matter origin, please see: A New Scenario for Integral Universe Dynamics When Late-time the Polaritons could be Dark Matter Particles?
Stefan Mehedinteanu1 http://viXra.org/abs/1501.0185
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2015
Rather than seeking to determine why our models do not predict our observations, we have instead created imaginary matter to normalize our observation to our models.

No. there you go again. They have NOT created imaginary matter. They have given it a name. Whether it's matter (or something else) is not something you will find a definite pronouncement on from any scientist.
In that they are EXACTLY doing what you proposed: They are seeking out why our models aren't giving the results observed. All they have done is give the effect a name. Nothing more, nothing less.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
They do not do they correct n-body. They treat all mass as being concentrated at the center of the galaxy. This under-estimates the attraction of gravity of the system.

I have proven this repeatedly. A distributed system of masses exerts more net gravity on a nearby object than does a point mass of the same total mass with the same center of mass.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
antialias_physorg,

You keep making those false statements. Scientists are looking for dark matter as evidenced by the almost daily pronouncements the someone had found dark matter. This article pronounced that it has been found in the interior of our galaxy. The article is not about finding what is wrong with our models. It is about discovering an imaginary substance.

Scientists discuss what type of matter can have gravity but no other of the properties of mass.

Dark matter is definitively not a place holder. It is a kludge. Like all kludges, people begin to believe the kludge has actual existence.

It is simply imaginary.
syndicate_51
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Not news. This has been done before. We already know of the presence of dark matter. What I want is a form of quantification of what it is. Then that'll be news.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Why aren't we saying there is not enough matter in our solar system to hold it together? We don't because we have determined the sun has enough mass to hold all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in orbit. That is the same with the galaxy. The SMBH at the center has enough mass to hold all the matter in orbit, even at the high speed the objects are moving. If we add matter that we can't see, then the SMBH would not be strong enough to hold it all. I have enough strength to spin x amount of matter around me on a rope but I don't have the mass or strength to spin 2x amount of matter. Adding more matter would not help
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Why aren't we saying there is not enough matter in our solar system to hold it together? We don't because we have determined the sun has enough mass to hold all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in orbit. That is the same with the galaxy. The SMBH at the center has enough mass to hold all the matter in orbit, even at the high speed the objects are moving. If we add matter that we can't see, then the SMBH would not be strong enough to hold it all. I have enough strength to spin x amount of matter around me on a rope but I don't have the mass or strength to spin 2x amount of matter. Adding more matter would not help
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Why aren't we saying there is not enough matter in our solar system to hold it together? We don't because we have determined the sun has enough mass to hold all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in orbit. That is the same with the galaxy. The SMBH at the center has enough mass to hold all the matter in orbit, even at the high speed the objects are moving. If we add matter that we can't see, then the SMBH would not be strong enough to hold it all. I have enough strength to spin x amount of matter around me on a rope but I don't have the mass or strength to spin 2x amount of matter. Adding more matter would not help
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Why aren't we saying there is not enough matter in our solar system to hold it together? We don't because we have determined the sun has enough mass to hold all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in orbit. That is the same with the galaxy. The SMBH at the center has enough mass to hold all the matter in orbit, even at the high speed the objects are moving. If we add matter that we can't see, then the SMBH would not be strong enough to hold it all. I have enough strength to spin x amount of matter around me on a rope but I don't have the mass or strength to spin 2x amount of matter. Adding more matter would not help
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
@ Jerry-Skippy. Are you retarded? Nothing personal by me asking and I don't mean any harm to you Cher. But posting up the same thing every four or three minutes is weird. Maybe you just so proud of him you want to see him up there over and over. Trust me, we got it the first time you put him up.

If you post him up for the five times while I'm writing this, you win the silly looking pointy cap for you to wear for the rest of the day.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Why aren't we saying there is not enough matter in our solar system to hold it together? We don't because we have determined the sun has enough mass to hold all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in orbit. That is the same with the galaxy. The SMBH at the center has enough mass to hold all the matter in orbit, even at the high speed the objects are moving. If we add matter that we can't see, then the SMBH would not be strong enough to hold it all. I have enough strength to spin x amount of matter around me on a rope but I don't have the mass or strength to spin 2x amount of matter. Adding more matter would not help
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
Why aren't we saying there is not enough matter in our solar system to hold it together? We don't because we have determined the sun has enough mass to hold all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in orbit. That is the same with the galaxy. The SMBH at the center has enough mass to hold all the matter in orbit, even at the high speed the objects are moving. If we add matter that we can't see, then the SMBH would not be strong enough to hold it all. I have enough strength to spin x amount of matter around me on a rope but I don't have the mass or strength to spin 2x amount of matter. Adding more matter would not help


The silly looking pointy cap looks really good on you Cher. Be sure to take a picture of you wearing him so you show your momma what you are doing in the class today.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Dark Matter can be described as a dark hole that fills in the missing parts of our inadequate theories of Gravity.

If we aren't sure what makes up the Black Holes at the center of our galaxy, how then can they say it doesn't have enough matter/gravity to hold the galaxy together?

Since Galaxies rotate at a constant rate whether you are close to the center (where it should rotate faster), or further from the center (where it should rotate slower), then there is obviously a force at work here that we do not understand. Seems to me it should be an effect caused by the galactic center, somehow causing spacetime to rotate with it. This lies at the heart of the matter, so I am unwilling to accept Dark Matter or Dark Energy as anything other than missing parts of our understanding of gravity/cosmology.
indio007
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
"We know that dark matter is needed in our Galaxy to maintain the facade of relativity's correctness."

there fixed it.
Losik
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2015
"We know that dark matter is needed in our Galaxy to maintain the facade of relativity's correctness.
Dark matter violates the relativity from its very finding. It has been revealed just with its violation of general relativity and gravitational law.


Oh for heaven's sake Zephyr, how would you know? You can't make a statement like this without understanding the maths behind the theories you claim reveal a "violation" and you have already admitted you don't understand the maths.

Your AWT (or whatever you call it) is garbage and BS pseudo-science! Stop trying to push it on us!
Nanowill
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
There is a simple reason for the observed CDM effect and it has nothing to do with any kind of new matter. The problem as many contributors suggest is out lack of understanding gravity, in particular the difference between Newton's relation and General Relativity. This has been resolved, but nobody wants to publish it ...for obvious reasons, i.e. there is no CDM and Physics missed a turn in the road almost a century ago and refuses to consider a change in direction. Too many apple carts and gravy chains get destroyed! The resolution to this issue also provides the MOND constant.
Nanowill
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
There is a simple reason for the observed CDM effect and it has nothing to do with any kind of new matter. The problem, as many contributors suggest, is lack of understanding gravity, in particular the difference between Newton's relation and General Relativity. This has been resolved, but nobody wants to publish it ...for obvious reasons, i.e. there is no CDM and Physics missed a turn in the road almost a century ago and refuses to consider a change in direction. Too many apple carts and gravy chains get destroyed! The resolution to this issue also provides and explains the MOND constant.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
@ the twit Uncle Ira. It's a bit rich to criticize others and give them pointy hats while you still are bot-voting on a SCIENCE site and trolling your inane personality cult idiocy on the net for all to see how hypocritically insensible you are. Piss off and save your pointy hats for yourself to wear, you inbred idiot troll turdhead of a bot-voting moron. The pointy hats fit you better than anyone else, for only utter useless insensible uncomprehending couyons would STILL bot-vote and post personally cult drivel....on a SCIENCE site. You utter troll twit.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
@ the twit Uncle Ira


@ Really-Skippy. Are you already in the bad mood when you come here? Or do you just get that way when you bump into me? There is the reason that I ask you about that Cher.

Skippy, if it's because you already are then all I can to is try to make the joke and lighten things up and maybe give you something to smile with.

If it is just because you bump into me, then I can help with that one too. Right down there under where I wrote this down there a thing that you can click and you will never have to see anything I ever write down again. He works good too because I got a couple of couyons ignored, but he only works IF you got the will power not to peek which I am probably pretty sure you don't (which is why you have permanent "get-a-free-silly-looking-pointy-cap-when-yours-gets tattered-and-shabby" card.)

Laissez les bons temps rouler P'tit Boug. That's coonass for: Take your 1 and SHUT UP Skippy.
jerry_bushman_7
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
Sorry for the multiple posts. On my end my comment wasn't posting when I clicked submit, so I kept clicking.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
That poor insensible village idiot and bot-voting troll turd "Uncle Ira" still deludes himself that everyone who tells the already and often proved truth about him to his face must be "in a bad mood". It never strikes his malignant mean mentality that the truth is not "mood based" like his own "likes/dislikes" bot-voting list, but objectively demonstrable via his own stupid actions skewing, sabotaging and spamming his personality cult driveling idiocies on a SCIENCE site. What a maroon, hey folks? All "mood" and no "brain". Perfect example of insensible internet turd who has chosen to become an utter malignant irrelevance whenever and wherever science and humanity discourse is being conducted. Poor inbred Uncle Ira bot-voting village idiot. Too sad.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
That poor insensible village idiot and bot-voting troll turd "Uncle Ira" still deludes himself that everyone who tells the already and often proved truth about him to his face must be "in a bad mood". It never strikes his malignant mean mentality that the truth is not "mood based" like his own "likes/dislikes" bot-voting list, but objectively demonstrable via his own stupid actions skewing, sabotaging and spamming his personality cult driveling idiocies on a SCIENCE site. What a maroon, hey folks? All "mood" and no "brain". Perfect example of insensible internet turd who has chosen to become an utter malignant irrelevance whenever and wherever science and humanity discourse is being conducted. Poor inbred Uncle Ira bot-voting village idiot. Too sad.


I knew you couldn't resist. Cher you are too easy. Now take another 1 and SIT DOWN and SHUT UP. We know you can't do that either non. So you'll have to take your 1 and whine about how ol Ira-Skippy votes.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Poor malignant twerp "Uncle Ira" bot-voter on a SCIENCE site:
I knew you couldn't resist. Cher you are too easy. Now take another 1 and SIT DOWN and SHUT UP. We know you can't do that either non. So you'll have to take your 1 and whine about how ol Ira-Skippy votes.
Who takes any notice of what such a useless bot-voting nincompoop likes or wants or threatens or drivels on about. You are IRRELEVANT to the science and humanity discourse here, because you still bot-vote on a SCIENCE site. Have you not grasped that simple truth about your self-made irrelevance, moron? Piss off with your personal antics and troll turd drivel. No-one needs any of what you keep trying to inflict on a SCIENCE site from your twisted self-delusional insensibility. That you keep up this moronic 'couyon' act, while skewing ratings filter results for readers, is ample demonstration of your total and utter village-idiot level of 'thinking'. You neither understand not care to, inbred idiot-bot.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Who takes any notice of what such a useless bot-voting nincompoop likes or wants or threatens or drivels on about.


You seem to take an extra amount of noticing.

That you keep up this moronic 'couyon' act, while skewing ratings filter results for readers,


It's the service I do diligently for the scientists and humans.

You neither understand not care to, inbred idiot-bot.


Well I sure do have your number Cher. Like I said, you are too easy. Why you don't just go play with yours toes for a while?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Really-Skippy don't it just eat you up inside that I am the only Skippy here who will talk to you? If you had anything that was worth anything, maybe you could get you some karma points and not be at the bottom of everybody on the physorg. Choot, Zephir-Skippy has higher karma points than you do.

This where you tell us that the points don't mean nothing to you except you whine about them in every postum.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
Poor bot-voting Uncle Ira troll turd thinks noticing him shitting his idiocy on a SCIENCE site is somehow noticing him 'personally' as a human being. Poor twerp thinks that shitting his turds on a SCIENCE site is a "service to scientists and humans".

Well, poor Ira bot-voting turd hasn't heard the news that his "smart peoples" were proven WRONG and me RIGHT. So all his "service" to "them" is just as moronic as ever.

Poor Uncle Ira thinks that others actually live for his 'talk'. What an inbred nincompoop that deludes himself that he does anything other than 'drivel' and bot-vote and skew ratings system on a SCIENCE site.

Poor Uncle twit has to lie so hard and so often to himself in order to feel 'relevant' and 'wanted' on a SCIENCE site.....which his continuing insensible troll turd activity is trashing the SCIENCE and HUMANITY discourse ethics of! What an utter waste of headspace is our Uncle twerp troll-bot. Sad.
bluehigh
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015
Last year, scientists discovered a burnt out star only 4 light years from Sol(our sun).


I searched but found no evidence for any burned out stars nearby.

You have a reference?
bluehigh
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015
Late night show hosts, old musicians and ex movie stars don't count.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
And.... how's that TOE coming along there, RC?
Makin' any headway?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
@Hat
I read the other day that DM possibly can't penetrate our atmosphere
@Hat1208
would you mind sharing the link for this?
do you have something we can reference or read regarding this statement?
Thanks in advance

And.... how's that TOE coming along there, RC?
Makin' any headway?
@Whydening Gyre
didn't you hear? he is putting it aside to save us all from Global Warming!
http://phys.org/n...fic.html
did you forget his comment?
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year
He still hasn't said WHERE he will be publishing this.. or what conference... despite repeated requests so that we can mark the date as historical (hysterical?)


Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@CaptainStumpy
Captain here is the link for the proposed new particle from January 29th.

http://phys.org/n...ark.html
@Hat
Thank you for the link... i missed that one. i've been away
it specifically states, for those interested
The proposed particle has a mass of 100eV/c^2, only about 0.02 per cent that of an electron. While it does not interact with light, as required for Dark Matter, it does interact surprisingly strongly with normal matter. Indeed, in stark contrast to other candidates, it may not even penetrate Earth's atmosphere. Earth-bound detection is therefore not likely, so the researchers plan to incorporate searches into a space experiment planned by the Macroscopic quantum resonators (MAQRO) consortium, with whom they are already involved.
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...ark.html#jCp

article from the study here
http://www.nature...8058.pdf
cantdrive85
Feb 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
katesisco
not rated yet Feb 14, 2015
This comment may be off base, pardon me, but since monoatomic elements do not bond, and therefore cannot be detected as 'matter', are there any theories as to the missing mass/matter is actually monoatonic metals?
Shootist
not rated yet Feb 14, 2015
Why can't dark matter be rogue planets, asteroids, comets, ice, and the rest of the matter we can't see on the outskirts of our own solar system let alone around stars 100,000 light years away?


It can be. Article here at phys.org suggests that particles (point masses) massing more more than 55g and less than something around the mass of Ceres dwarf planet, have not been ruled out as DM candidates.
bbbbwindows
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2015
It is earth shaking news that "dark matter" has been "confirmed" anywhere. The mathematicians must be overjoyed!!
Actually nothing could be further from the truth. Dark matter has never been observed or experimentally confirmed. The explanation of these effects seen by "dark matter" are actually caused by strong electromagnetic fields.
The entire "standard model" is on the verge of collapse. Halton Arp's (Max Planck Inst.) work on red shift has been confirmed by Chandra and invalidates the big bang/inflation. Donald Scott's (The Electric Sky) lecture at NASA in 2009 was the beginning of the end of gravity based theories (black holes, neutron stars, dark matter). Recent data on the complexity of the earth/sun magnetic fields has damaged the concept of stellar nuclear fusion.
Nobel Winner's Langmuir and Alfvens have paved the way for the adoption of electromagnetism as the driving force in the universe. Cosmologists that don't understand "Z pinch" will soon be obsolete.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015
And yet the most physicists will not come right out and say they know enough about photons to speak definitively about whether or not they have some sort of mass. Funny how they con't mention the fact that space definitely has no mass, ever. Spa e has mass in it but other than that it is just space...........nothing.........massless........void........
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2015
Why can't dark matter be rogue planets, asteroids, comets, ice, and the rest of the matter we can't see on the outskirts of our own solar system let alone around stars 100,000 light years away?

Good question: Working from the assumption that our solar system is rather typical - where almost all of the mass is concentrated in the sun (even taking the Oort cloud into account):
http://en.wikiped..._by_size
you can see that even if there were a considerable amount of rogue planets it wouldn't add up to much (certainly not to the huge percentage needed to keep everything moving the way it is).


If we were working on the assumption that our solar system was "typical" Then we would be a binary system.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.