Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Builds 3D Dark Matter Map
astroengine writes "Dark matter can't be spotted directly because it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e. it doesn't emit any radiation and reflects no light). However, its gravitational influence on space-time can bend light from its otherwise straight path (a phenomenon known as 'lensing'). Using a sophisticated algorithm to scan a comprehensive Hubble Space Telescope survey of the cosmos, astronomers have plotted a map of 'weak lensing' events. Combining this with red shift measurements from ground-based observatories, they've produced a strikingly colorful 3D map of the structure of dark matter."
Let's map the financial "dark matter". It's not hard at all, as it all goes through banks. Except, of course, it would show a lot of things nobody wants seen, such as all the elegant addresses of the dirty business money.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA.
I agree it's a nice picture but there seems to be no explanation as to what these colours actually mean, let alone any kind of conclusion drawn from what I presume to be "pockets of dark matter".
Anyone care to enlighten me?
The pic looks like the Zetarians.
Sig this!
looks photoshopped to me
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
...how they know it’s lensing, and that the stars aren’t just positioned like that?
Sounds to me like you could never prove, which one it really is, until you fly behind that “dark matter”. (To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong! ^^ [But a good {and compact!} explanation will of course change my mind.])
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
...especially when you consider it's a picture of something that very possibly doesn't even exist.
There isn't any "scale bar" because you are not looking at something at any fixed distance! You are looking at (theoretically) blobs of stuff at various distances.
looks like a My Little Pony pegasus got up there and jizzed all over the lens...
Phantom of the Opera. Great. NEXT!
Any off the wall collection of data up through true random can be used to "make" a pretty pictur, since the picture is actually made by people and therefore made pretty by them. This does nothing but make eye candy.
What's the results? What's the implications? Where does this put the current pro/con dark energy argument, not to mention the recent 'discovery' of 10 times more baryonic matter than we had seen previously? Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained how that other matter was already known about since to know it in the absence of EM detection meant gravity detection, and you can't tell "dark" baryonic gravity from dark matter gravity from dark energy gravity.
All pretty pictures, more questions and fewer answers. This is not what we're paying them for.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Lensing is known to happen with black holes and other massive bodies how does this map distinguish dark matter from other sources of lensing? By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light. Unless "interaction" has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me. I don't see how this gets us any closer to understanding the nature of dark matter/energy.
"ALLEGED" dark matter.
... the disturbance I felt in the Force earlier. I thought I just had gas.
So luminiferous and aethereal! Almost magical like!
Or is my pattern-recognition generating a false positive?
Seems I read recently about how observations of distant galaxies were hampered by the wavelength of light being sought- that they were so far away and so redshifted that when astronomers finally looked for the right wavelength, zillions more were found. What I wondered at the time was what this might do to dark matter calculations- if a large amount of matter in the universe simply wasn't being observed because we weren't looking for it the right way until recently, even with our decades-old tech which eventually found it, is it possible that dark matter is simply regular matter not observed correctly? Like you think there are no bowling balls in the room because you're looking at the ceiling?
It's life Jim, but not as we know it!
Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists; they're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics.
Once we have sufficiently explored the alternative gravitational theories that don't rely on dark energy or dark matter, and obtained a sufficiently improved grasp of the laws of physics, we'll be able to explain the cosmic observations without resorting to the "voodoo" of dark matter or dark energy.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Every map needs to have a scale bar at the very least. We need something to tell us where this thing is and what all the colors mean. Also, there is nothing 3D about it.Chinese Girls vs Japanese Girls
There was this recent article on a popular news site for geeks - ah, here it is: 90% of Universe Found Hiding in Plain View.
Just the other day there was an article about finding the remaining 90% of the universe that was previously missing by simply looking at the frequency spectra associated to hydrogen. Showing a whole lot of more galaxies than what previously was seen.
I actually submitted a story on this exact same topic back in 2007. The only thing new they seem to have now is a nicer picture, the article seems much lighter than the original article I linked to three years ago. The new article doesn't seem to indicate any new science that has developed since then, not even links or mentions of any new publications updating the findings in 2007, or even mentions of the scientists who are behind this work...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Try http://www.thunderbolts.info/
There is also a very nice book to get you started called "The Big Bang Never Happened"
I love articles like this, I know they are crap before I even read them. Then I read them and just sort of laugh with a bit of disgust.
But really, the color map was just fucking rediculous childish crap. I mean, come on people. I think they release stuff like this just to laugh at people when they buy it. If they are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt.
You don't have to know anything about the subject to know that this is plain simple foolishness.
Oh my God! It's full of stars!
http://www.spacetelescope.org/goodies/printlayouts/html/heic1005.html
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
And a little more about how they did it:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic1005c.html
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I agree to a point. Its either a fist or a chicken, a duck and swan and a dolphin are flying in front of the camera.
Space is so far out man!
This is one of the lamest things I have ever seen. OMG is this a joke or what!? If these guys are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt. Check out thunderolts.info or read "The Big Bang Never Happened" But for gods' sake don't eat this shit sandwich!
Love of two is website. mr. de Raymond in his mistake of electing us the courtesy Needs OS. Now BSDI all along. *BSD fear the reaper your spare time reaper Nor do the
Is it me, or did that pic give anyone else a TOS flashback where they meet some energy-based alien that fucks with the ship?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
...is totally normal matter, but invisible for us because it is located in another universe? I am not a physicist so my idea might be totally wacko, but ages ago I watched the BBC documentation 'The elegant universe'. One of the string theories explained there proposed that the reason gravity is so weak compared to other major forces is that the 'strings', which are responsible for gravity have the ability to migrate into parallel universes. Therefore we always feel only a fraction of the gravity mass 'produces'. <--- Please be lenient with my very unscientific wording. :-)
So when I saw this documentation I always wondered, when 'our' gravity migrates into other universes, shouldn't also migrate gravity from other universes into ours? I wondered if this theory was true, how would a black hole in a parallel universe look like here?
So maybe, if we had the ability to fly to those places where hubble located the 'dark matter', we would find nothing. The space is curved there for no apparent reason. It is actually because of normal matter in a parallel universe.
Sorry it was a $640 toilet seat and a $436 hammer. Where do you think Independence Day got the kernel of truth from? Source: Here. Anybody with a grain of sense knows they were slush funds, I'm sure today that money still flows around its just not as well accounted for as a $436 hammer ;)
Shh.
the most important thing may be that this is dishonest in the sense that the colors give a psychological impression that is misleading - the deltas in the dark matter are probably small, so the colorization gives a misleading impression
"as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does " You need relativity correction for guidance system like GPS. So chance is, even relativity has an impact on the GP live.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They stole this picture from an episode of the original Star Trek.
I remember it. I was there.
The picture looks strikingly like the graphics of outer space entities shown :-)
on various episodes of the original star trek. But without the story line
The article dated "March 26, 2010":
http://news.discovery.com/space/hubble-3d-map-universe-dark-matter.html
has a source dated 25-Mar-2010::
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic1005.html
with this quote which explains everything:
The data was old, the analysis and imaging is new.
The 'Links' at the bottom include the new paper, and the old study. The old press release dated "7-errNoSuchMonth-2007":
"News Release heic0701 - First 3D map of the Universe's Dark Matter scaffolding"
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0701.html
Is the one described your original article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
from the article: "However, we cannot directly measure the stuff as it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e. it doesn't emit or reflect any light)"
For like the billionth time, they don't know that! Why do they keep making that assumption?! It's 1000000000x more likely that it's just normal matter that doesn't happen to have measurable light (or other EM radiation) bouncing off of it at the moment. Just because we can't "see" it doesn't mean it's some magical, law of physics-breaking mystery material. That's like turning off all the lights in your room and then saying "well, logically all the matter in my room just disappeared into a different dimension or state of matter because that makes the most sense to me." Ugh, scientists can be such idiots sometimes. If you don't believe me, look up a history of idiotic assumptions about astronomy that were believed for absolutely no reason and then proven wrong.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Isn't doubt what got us science in the first place?
Only when done sincerely, and with an understanding of the existing theories and the evidence for them, and thus their actual flaws.
We call those people "scientists". There are plenty of them who are exercising legitimate doubt yet following the evidence.
A "doubter" shares none of these aspects with scientists except for the doubt, and even then calling "doubt" is inaccurate because they are so often already convinced that the science is obviously wrong, and the scientists arrogant dogmatists for not admitting it.
At no point in my post did I suggest that dark matter is wrong.
Uh, you said that the leading dark matter hypothesis contradicted gravitational theory, which would mean one or the other was wrong, and you correctly noted that gravitational theory has been verified extensively, strongly suggesting you thought non-baryonic dark matter was ruled out.
You said claiming otherwise was "dogmatic in the extreme".
What I suggested was that people who insist it is right have a very poor grasp of the scientific method. At present it appears to be a very strong hypothesis. That's great.
Nobody is insisting that it is irrefutable. "Very strong hypothesis" is a much better description -- much stronger than most people, including you, are suggesting. The observation of the phenomenon we call dark matter is, at this point, essentially a fact, and that may be what the people are talking about.
I like to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism about any observational science that, for reasons of scale or scope, cannot (or has yet to) be proven in a laboratory setting.
That's great. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be helpful if you treated skeptics with skepticism, and looked into their arguments a little closer, or looked more into what evidence does exist for astronomical theory. You might be surprised to find out it's a lot more than you think, or were told by a "skeptic"!
Doubt is a good way to attack religion. Characterizing doubt as an attack on science is to turn science into a religion, and defeat its very purpose.
I'm not characterizing doubt itself as an attack on science.
I'm characterizing "doubt" that is founded in ignorance and the a-priori decision that the science must be wrong, as an attack on science. Which it is. Calling scientists arrogant and dogmatic because you don't understand the theory and because you can't believe they are right is not legitimate doubt. It's not useful scientific skepticism. It's hypocrisy.
While you certainly aren't as bad as many, since information you were unaware of appears to affect your opinion, this is still basically what you were doing -- calling every scientist working on non-baryonic dark matter a dogmatist for not admitting your (incorrect) argument proved them wrong. It's funny how you say doubt is a good way to attack religion, while simultaneously doing everything you can (including the topic of this post) to imply science is a religion and thus attack it via doubt.
Step one to being a useful scientific critic: Stop using arrogance and dogmatism to claim all scientists working in a particular field are arrogant and dogmatic.
The enemies of Democracy are