Dinosaurs Done In By... Dark Matter?

magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 10:45 · Score: 0

These explanations sound like god did it to me, unless we can somehow detect the cloud of matter.

Re:magic by denis-The-menace · 2014-03-07 10:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Remember folks:
Dark Mater is a THEORETICAL stuff that weighs a lot or is all over the place to explain why entire solar systems don't fly out of the Galaxy as they spin.
What if there was no Dark matter and Gravity could distorts time in a way that would explain it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Re:magic by wonkey_monkey · 2014-03-07 11:20 · Score: 2

Remember folks:
Dark Mater is a THEORETICAL stuff that weighs a lot or is all over the place to explain why entire solar systems don't fly out of the Galaxy as they spin.
Yes, we know. Who said it wasn't theoretical? In case you missed the first three words of the summary: "Theoretical physicists propose..."

What if there was no Dark matter and Gravity could distorts time in a way that would explain it all.
Aaand what if gravity doesn't do that?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 11:25 · Score: 1

Those heathen dinosaurs didn't worship Jeebus hard enough and GOD smote them for their insolence.
Re:magic by mythosaz · 2014-03-07 11:34 · Score: 4, Funny

My understanding of the English language isn't complete, but I understood "theoretical physicists" to mean that the physicists themselves were only theoretical -- in much the same way that "garden gnome" is a gnome that lives in a garden.
Re:magic by lgw · 2014-03-07 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everything is science is "theoretical", that doesn't mean it's unlikely to be true.
Dark matter explains both galaxy rotation and the behavior of the early universe quite well. Until the CMBR data, dark matter was just one hypothesis among many for galaxy rotation, but only dark matter explained the observed pattern of mass distribution when the universe cooled enough to become transparent for the first time. And the numbers matched to a couple of significant digits, not in some hand-wavey way.
What dark matter is made of is still an open question, but it's pretty clear that about 4/5ths of the matter in the universe is dark.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 12:35 · Score: 0

Worse than that, it turns out the real culprits were a couple of dinos, Andrew and William, who had a thing for each other, smitten, you might say, and ripe for smiting; because they were "making it" with each other, like, making the back with two beasts...or something. Anyway, it was all covered by a Tyrannosaurus Badbreathus named Pattus Robertsonii on his nightly "Spreading Tree Ferns with Pattus" show. All their San Andreas' fault, he claimed. Now here we are, their descendants, stuck in the middle of the same La Brea Arm Pits of Ignorance...again.
Re:magic by FatdogHaiku · 2014-03-07 12:35 · Score: 5, Funny

I have found you can increase gravity locally by slamming down a 12 pack of beer. From this I can deduce that in order to stay together, the galaxies must be totally hammered...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:magic by Cramer · 2014-03-07 12:42 · Score: 1

Personally, I was gonna blame the Big Bang. If you're going to make an absurd connection, take. it. all. the. way.
Re:magic by DexterIsADog · 2014-03-07 12:58 · Score: 4, Funny

...in case you missed the first three words of the summary: "Theoretical physicists propose..."
I prefer to get my physics from physicists that actually exist, thanks.
Re:magic by roc97007 · 2014-03-07 13:01 · Score: 3, Funny

I darn well stubbed my toe on *something* when I staggered home last night, so I'm pretty sure the garden gnome is not theoretical.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:magic by StevenMaurer · 2014-03-07 13:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Dark matter is not THEORETICAL. There is direct evidence for it. Quoting from the relevant wiki:

The most direct observational evidence to date for dark matter is in a system known as the Bullet Cluster. In most regions of the universe, dark matter and visible material are found together,[33] as expected because of their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Cluster, a collision between two galaxy clusters appears to have caused a separation of dark matter and baryonic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the baryonic matter (in the form of 107–108 Kelvin[34] gas, or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of the system. Electromagnetic interactions between passing gas particles caused them to slow down and settle near the point of impact. However, weak gravitational lensing observations of the same system show that much of the mass resides outside of the central region of baryonic gas.
In other words, gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of matter - shows a region where there is matter that is clearly non-baryonic (i.e. does not interact with the electromagnetic field, a.k.a. "dark"). This is not subject to dispute. The question of what, exactly, is dark matter - is indeed still a subject of scientific research. There are, however, a number of super-symmetric theories which posit super-partners for well known particles, the most stable of which turn out to have the exact characteristics we're noting observationally. It is important to note that these theories were not tailored to account for the dark matter, but seem to fit the observational evidence quite well so far. As with all science however, theories are subject to falsification at any times as soon as new evidence comes on the scene.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 13:09 · Score: 1

One cloaca is as good as any other.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 13:19 · Score: 0

Maybe the missing dark matter is hiding in your garden.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 14:10 · Score: 1

It's not non science. Perhaps you should read "dark" as "unknown" instead. It's unknown energy, and unknown matter. It's just a place holder for something we don't yet understand. The scientists are fully aware it is something they don't understand. So they're not just making shit up.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 14:19 · Score: 1

gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of warped space
FTFY

This is not subject to dispute
It damn well is!
Re:magic by mrsquid0 · 2014-03-07 14:25 · Score: 1

Rubbish.
There is considerable observational evidence for both.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 14:53 · Score: 0

Maybe the missing dark matter is hiding in your garden

The dark matter couldn't be "missing", or else GP's toes wouldn't have been "stubbed".
Re:magic by TheRealMindChild · 2014-03-07 17:28 · Score: 0

Matter is just really dense energy. E=MC^2 and all that

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 18:15 · Score: 0

On the contrary. The only evidence we have is that it cannot yet be observed. Thus the moniker of being dark.
Re:magic by dbraden · 2014-03-07 19:55 · Score: 3, Funny

In all fairness to mythosaz, he called it a "garden gnome," not a "theoretical garden gnome."
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 23:14 · Score: 0

It isn't the existence of the theoretical entity that is questioned here. It is that he/she only is a physicists in theory.
To get a better analogy. No-one questions whether TSA is an agency that is real or not, it is the security part that is theatrical.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 23:23 · Score: 0

Rubbish.
There is considerable observational evidence for both.
Excellent that you shared it then, makes your claim substantial.
Re:magic by JDeane · 2014-03-08 02:11 · Score: 1

This would explain why the room spins too... Like a galaxy!!!
Re:magic by mrsquid0 · 2014-03-08 02:40 · Score: 1

Again, rubbish.
There is evidence for dark matter from many areas of astronomy. Others have listed observational evidence and provided links to details. Follow them. I am not going to do your homework for you. Simply saying that something does not exist because you do not understand it, or because you do not want it to exist, or because you have a grudge against science is magical thinking.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:magic by iMadeGhostzilla · 2014-03-08 03:53 · Score: 1

It isn't obvious that what we are seeing is matter, dark or otherwise, but only that we see an effect that causes lensing as per our theoretical models and methods of observation. Maybe it's some other force field, maybe conditions are different in the part of the universe we observed -- this is far out but not so much compared to something called "dark matter."
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 04:24 · Score: 0

Again, your missing in comprehension of the subject does not will something into existence. There is not observational evidence of something we cannot observe. We have seen some phenomenons that do not match our current model of understanding. That does not mean that you, or anyone else, gets to will something into existence that we have no proof of in order to defend the standard model. The model itself may be wrong. You don't know. I don't know. There is no observational evidence of dark matter or energy, only that our current understanding is wrong. Your desire to appeal to repeated ad hominem and intellectual laziness does not mean that others are the same as you.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 04:29 · Score: 0

And I must note that saying it's "dark" matter isn't inappropriate. It's matter (which we conclude since it has a gravitational effect) that doesn't seem to emit electromagnetic radiation, at least at the frequencies that we're used to detecting for such things. Remember, recent sky surveys suggest that there's more cold gas out there than we previously detected. Colder gas emits much less EM radiation.
I have no problem therefore with the term dark matter, and as you noted, neither should anyone else. The leading candidates for DM were on the order WIMPs and MACHOs... basically, weakly-interacting particles (like neutrinos) and compact but massive objects (like neutron stars). The most recent data suggests that there's a third order of candidate, that being masses of cold gas that we've naturally overlooked. I propose this third order be named GUY... gas unknown yesterday.
Re: magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 04:34 · Score: 0

Would that make the garden theoretical or yhe gnome theoretical?
Re:magic by FatdogHaiku · 2014-03-08 05:17 · Score: 1

Dude! Like, when you are hammered you can SEE it, right? The rest of the time nobody notices because they are out of sync with the universe! We are totally getting a Nobel Prize for this, but we're going to need enough booze to get the whole committee wasted so they can grasp the cosmic significance! And then enough Bloody Mary mix and vodka so they can write the proclamation (and the check) the next day...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:magic by dkf · 2014-03-08 06:12 · Score: 1

On the contrary. The only evidence we have is that it cannot yet be observed. Thus the moniker of being dark.
We can observe that there must be something there (from the gravitational effects) but we can't actually see it (though there's been a few hints of annihilations that might be consistent with something like a sterile neutrino). It's like looking for a black cat in a coal cellar: we might not see the cat, but we can feel the mice it has killed and (maybe) hear the meow.
If there is a sterile neutrino out there, directly observing it is going to be absurdly hard.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 06:15 · Score: 0

How do they know they didn't stub their toe on a theoretical physicist?
That's what I want to know.
Re:magic by mrsquid0 · 2014-03-08 06:18 · Score: 1

Once again, rubbish.
There are decades of observational evidence that support the existence of dark matter. If you have any evidence that those observations are wrong, or have been interpreted incorrectly then feel free to present that evidence. You are making an extraordinary claim, that many years of research is wrong. You now need to provide evidence to back up your claim.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 07:35 · Score: 0

gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of warped space
What we commonly refer to as "gravity" is simply how we perceive the warping of space and its effects (eg, gravity does not pull stuff in to a black hole so strongly that nothing can escape; rather, space is so warped by the mass/gravity of the singularity that every possible path only leads closer to the center).
We dont know of anything else besides matter that can warp space to create gravitational lenses, so thats what its hypothesized to be, and since we cant directly observe that matter, but can only detect it due to it warping space, we call it "dark" matter.
So yes, seeing warped space (aka gravity) is a pretty sure sign that there's enough mass there to warp space to that degree, even if we cant see it; ie, seeing gravitational lensing without observable matter is a sure sign that there's some "dark" matter there.
Re:magic by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-03-08 08:46 · Score: 1

Reminds me of a cheesy pickup line I heard:
You remind me of my big toe, because I'm going to bang you on my couch soon.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re: magic by astar · 2014-03-08 17:01 · Score: 1

Hmm. And the SUSY model that is consistent with .... The null hypothesis
I think I will submit a story
SUSY is chopped up. Wait for it.
Re:magic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 02:25 · Score: 0

Rubbish.
There is considerable observational evidence for both.
Not direct observational evidence, it's just that the universe expanding is physically impossible if there weren't dark matter and dark energy under special relativity.

Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by fullmetal55 · 2014-03-07 10:47 · Score: 5, Funny

GO!
seriously how long until someone claims that this happens every 35 million years and the clock is ticking down to Nov 10, 2016.

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by DrPBacon · 2014-03-07 10:50 · Score: 3, Funny

But have you looked at the numbers? All the numbers?! They add up!

--
Spent All My Mod Points
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by zentigger · 2014-03-07 11:13 · Score: 1

It's actually Sept, 8, 2014, but that's a simple enough mistake for an amateur.

--
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by suutar · 2014-03-07 11:14 · Score: 1

To another number! It's numbers all the way down!! :)
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by FuzzNugget · 2014-03-07 11:18 · Score: 1

Are the articles British?
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-03-07 11:20 · Score: 3

Both of you are wrong. Supercomputer modeling and number dowsing have conclusively proven that the perturbation will cause an E.L.E. boloid strike exactly matching the Mayan prophecy of doom on December 23rd, 2012. They knew this sacred knowledge because they could astral travel using advanced alien technology and actually SEE the dark matter vortex waves.

Just wait and see.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by mythosaz · 2014-03-07 11:35 · Score: 1

None of this will matter. Planet X will have reached us long before then.
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 11:36 · Score: 1

HalfLife 3 Confirmed!
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by lazy+genes · 2014-03-07 12:49 · Score: 0

Planet X is what happens when systems like the ort cloud or the asteroid belt clump up. There is mathematical proof that these systems will clump together into a large mass and then separate.
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by roc97007 · 2014-03-07 13:04 · Score: 1

Crap. Now I'm embarrassed to say that was my first thought on reading the article. I actually looked up the wiki for galactic year.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by roc97007 · 2014-03-07 13:05 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure it was Jan 20 2009.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Phoghat · 2014-03-07 14:15 · Score: 1

hold on, my Pastor is on the line right now

--
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 15:28 · Score: 0

GO! seriously how long until someone claims that this happens every 35 million years and the clock is ticking down to Nov 10, 2016.
That's the missing equation! It's going to happen on March 14th, 2014. (3/14/15).
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 16:06 · Score: 0

None of this will matter. Planet X will have reached us long before then.
That would be Planet IX; Pluto has been demoted.
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 16:09 · Score: 0

Erkk! March 14th, 2015
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 20:28 · Score: 0

Why did you pick up [seemingly random] the date of my 42nd birthday? Coincidence?
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 00:09 · Score: 0

"Cue" is not the same as "Queue"
Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 by Radish03 · 2014-03-08 01:41 · Score: 1

Do you have any peculiar friends named for cars?
Make sure you have a good towel ready.

Statistical analysis of craters by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2014-03-07 10:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I understand why they're getting a weak signal here on Earth, where most craters will have long since been erased by erosion and surface remodeling. But I'll bet we could get a much stronger signal from the Moon, particularly the far side. Do we have the ability to get dates for craters there from orbiting probes, or is that something we'd have to collect physical samples to do?

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Re:Statistical analysis of craters by HornWumpus · 2014-03-07 10:56 · Score: 1

IIRC you can estimate crater age by counting the # of smaller craters/area and using statistics.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Statistical analysis of craters by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2014-03-07 10:58 · Score: 2

Okay, makes sense. So we probably already have the data available to do a pretty good analysis of impact periodicity.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Statistical analysis of craters by HornWumpus · 2014-03-07 11:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Of course, if their hypothesis is correct all the statistical data will have to be re-calibrated to account for the occasional rain of meteors.
Also note: Age estimates for larger impacts will have smaller error bars.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Statistical analysis of craters by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2014-03-07 12:17 · Score: 1

Urgh. Good point.
I'll bet there's a model that could take all stuff this into account, and sufficient data to estimate the parameters. But trying to figure out what that would be feels too much like work.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Statistical analysis of craters by narcc · 2014-03-07 13:06 · Score: 1

I remember Richard Muller (Berkeley physicist) writing something about that in Nemesis: The Death Star (It's a pop-sci book, not science fiction as the title implies.)

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Statistical analysis of craters by kenwd0elq · 2014-03-07 14:12 · Score: 1

I was just about to say, "the return of the Nemesis theory", except that "theory" was always too strong a word for that - "conjecture", perhaps.
The idea was that sub-stellar-mass dark companion of the Sun would pass near enough to the Oort cloud to throw a barrage of comets into the inner solar system every 35 million years or so, and that we're just about due. The name of this object would be "Nemesis". (I think Asimov wove that into the end of one of his last stories,,,)
I still like this as a working hypothesis, but I can't really see "dark matter" coming into play - unless the "dark matter" is Jupiter-sized or thereabouts.

This seems to make a lot of assumptions by jandrese · 2014-03-07 10:50 · Score: 1

There seems to be some rather big assumptions being made here, like the nature of dark matter.

--

I read the internet for the articles.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by The123king · 2014-03-07 11:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Or that dark matter actually exists. I've never seen any definitive scientific evidence of the existence of it. Dark matter just seems to be that stuff we use to answer anything we don't quite understand. Big Bang? Dark matter. Quantum physics? Dark matter. Extinction of the dinosaurs? Dark matter. Why is yo mamma so fat? Dark matter.

--
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by suutar · 2014-03-07 11:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Just remember, dark matter is for explaining why very big things don't fly apart, and dark energy is for explaining why even bigger things do.
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 11:18 · Score: 0

Dark Matter Denier!
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 11:54 · Score: 0

Dark matter deniers? Dark matter did it.
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by Billly+Gates · 2014-03-07 12:25 · Score: 1

Some string theorists claim that when a string bends in the 4th dimension it creates the effects of dark matter.
Not to sound like an idiot because I have no physics degree, but if it exists everywhere why isn't it on Earth or anywhere else? Surely in the last billion years since our solar system revolved around the galaxy once we would at least encounter some of it?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by ceoyoyo · 2014-03-07 13:09 · Score: 1

We do. There was a good analysis by somebody I read once looking at how much dark matter you'd expect to find in the solar system. It's not much. Space is really big, and dark matter is pretty well spread around. That's why it doesn't perturb the orbits of the planets noticeably. It also interacts with matter very little, so it's hard to detect.
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 13:40 · Score: 1

Every reality-motivated explanation begins as a convenient way to to explain something not presently understood. Photoelectric effect not making sense with classical E&M? Hmmm, what if light came in discrete packets.
Dark matter was at the stage you seem to think it's at around 1960: "Hmmm, it would be convenient if there were more mass where we can't see it..." Starting from the Bullet Cluster, we have observed nearly a dozen galactic cluster collisions where the stars and dark matter pass right by/through each other, but the gas can't so it stops in the middle and is then observed falling back towards the opposite galaxy from the one where it originated as they fly by. Gravitational microlensing maps independently draw bullseyes of matter density exactly on the galaxies.
Dark matter's existence is far past the "convenient hypothesis" stage. In fact it's about the only remaining one since gravitational lensing maps have more or less completely ruled out the MOND alternative. That, and the fact that the so-called "WIMP Miracle" suggests that the dark matter particles will have a mass in the correct range to cancel quantum corrections that gives the Higgs its observed mass means we have very good reason to believe it exists.
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-03-07 14:20 · Score: 3, Funny

when a string bends in the 4th dimension it creates the effects of dark matter.
. . . but only if there is someone there in the 4th dimension to hear it.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 15:27 · Score: 0

I wonder if dark matter is simply just mass that exists in dimensions that we cannot directly perceive.
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2014-03-07 17:50 · Score: 1

your not the only one to wonder this...that's kinda the idea behind string theory...
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions by volmtech · 2014-03-08 10:03 · Score: 1

That is the best description of dark matter and energy that I have ever seen. I'm going to save it alongside the best description of wealth creation I have.

No, this is the real reason... by ArcadeNut · 2014-03-07 10:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Real Reason

--
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com

Re:No, this is the real reason... by The123king · 2014-03-07 11:04 · Score: 2

Strangely that's more believable.

--
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat

INCORECT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 11:05 · Score: 1

I caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs

signed
Fred F.

Academia, we hardly knew ye by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2014-03-07 11:13 · Score: 1

In retrospect, I rather regret not leaping on some bizzare and obscure science topic very early on in my career. With my early knowledge of pop-science and fantasy TV, film, and comic books, I could have made big headways in modern cosmology and theoretical physics by now.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:Academia, we hardly knew ye by lgw · 2014-03-07 12:04 · Score: 2

Sure, all you have to do is make numerically accurate predictions of future observations, how hard can that be? Or failing that, just be a String Theorist ...

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Academia, we hardly knew ye by phantomfive · 2014-03-07 19:11 · Score: 1

It's never too late to start. Unless you've already started, then it's too late.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

the punchline... by Connie_Lingus · 2014-03-07 11:18 · Score: 3, Funny

obviously, the dark matter came from Uranus

--
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.

Look to the geological record by wjcofkc · 2014-03-07 11:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years. Even though there is some give and take, on that timescale it's almost like clockwork. Since this discovery, scientists of many disciplines have been trying to figure out what could be causing it. While I admit that it could be a cosmic coincidence, if not, then somewhere a culprit is lurking. There are also lesser extinction events every 26 - 35 million years.

For more on the 62 million year problem

More on mass extinction events in general

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

Re:Look to the geological record by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2014-03-07 12:12 · Score: 1

If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years.
So we have records of about, what, eight thousand mass extinctions? Wow, I had no idea. ;)

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Look to the geological record by roc97007 · 2014-03-07 13:11 · Score: 2

> If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years.
Oddly enough, that works out to 1/4 of a galactic year to three decimal places.
Galactic seasons?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Look to the geological record by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 13:43 · Score: 0

500 billion years?!?!? The age of the universe is estimated to be only 13.8 billion. You must have some kind of fancy time machine, mister.
Re:Look to the geological record by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 13:57 · Score: 0

Either you mistyped million, or you seem to think the universe and the Earth are way, way, way older than they are.
Re:Look to the geological record by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 14:05 · Score: 0

500 billion years?!?!? The age of the universe is estimated to be only 13.8 billion. You must have some kind of fancy time machine, mister.
Messed up million and billion. It is supposed to say 500 million years, or half a billion. I don't know why so many people confuse those two, but evidently it happens all the time.
Billion rule for nerds:
Billion means GB
Million means MB
That should help. I have yet to see anybody here being unable to tell those two apart.
Re:Look to the geological record by wjcofkc · 2014-03-07 15:17 · Score: 1

Or roughly 130 over the last half-trillion years. Consider yourself educated. At least that's what's happens when physics meet geology.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Re:Look to the geological record by marcello_dl · 2014-03-07 22:51 · Score: 1

If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years. Even though there is some give and take, on that timescale it's almost like clockwork. Since this discovery, scientists of many disciplines have been trying to figure out what could be causing it.
Computer scientists think about it for about two seconds. Then they mutter "Must be the garbage collector" and go fetch a beer.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol

Off-topic: slashboxes by memnock · 2014-03-07 11:26 · Score: 1

Are these things being obsoleted? The most discussed and hot comments boxes haven't been updated in a week or two. Is the beta rollout still happening?

--
"To stop the terrorists."

Re:Off-topic: slashboxes by rts008 · 2014-03-07 22:54 · Score: 1

Is the beta rollout still happening?

If I remember correctly, the beta was not going 'live' until the end of March, or beginning of April.
I for one, was hoping it was an elaborate April Fools joke on /.'s part.
You have to admit, this one would go down in history as bigger than the year we were subjected to 'OMG...PONIES!!!'
I don't really expect /. beta to be an April Fool, unfortuneately.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

Something's afoot by PopeRatzo · 2014-03-07 11:27 · Score: 1

Yesterday, a story about upskirt photos being legal in Massachusetts and today dark matter killing off the dinosaurs.

Coincidence? I think not.

You know, it's amazing the insights that a few Friday afternoon cocktails can bring.

Add in Li'l Boosie getting released from prison today, and you can't tell me the Illuminati isn't behind all this. Maybe.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Something's afoot by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-03-07 15:44 · Score: 1

We had nothing to do with Li'l Boosie getting out! Word of honour.
(He was actually released on Wednesday, BTW.)

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Something's afoot by PopeRatzo · 2014-03-07 15:56 · Score: 1

(He was actually released on Wednesday, BTW.)
You'd like us to believe that, wouldn't you?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Dark Matter: Dr. Evil's next great plot by Required+Snark · 2014-03-07 11:31 · Score: 1

Sharks with lasers on their heads is so 20th century.

--
Why is Snark Required?

Nothing "real" to be explained here by murphtall · 2014-03-07 11:42 · Score: 2

LOL From TFA.... "Dissipative dark matter is a possible explanation, but it’s not clear that it’s explaining anything real"

Dark matter? by Karmashock · 2014-03-07 11:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm not a physicist but every description I've heard of dark matter more or less boils down to "we've noticed there is more gravity in areas where we don't see mass. And since only mass can generate gravity we have missing mass. We're going to call that missing mass dark matter."

Okay... fine... but that's entirely theoretical. No one has actually found dark matter... as in put it under a microscope or touched it. So... until then, lets not come up with any halfassed theories regarding it.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:Dark matter? by lgw · 2014-03-07 12:08 · Score: 0

Okay... fine... but that's entirely theoretical.
Right, like all of science.

No one has actually found dark matter... as in put it under a microscope or touched it
Right, like all of cosmology.
There's solid evidence for the existence of dark matter - it's composition remains a mystery as early hypotheses aren't panning out.
What I don't get is why anyone would think Dark Matter would form layers above and below the galactic disk. Hard to see why the distribution about the galaxy would be anything but spherical.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Dark matter? by Lord+Lemur · 2014-03-07 12:47 · Score: 2

It would seem to follow that dark matter would tend to naturally form some type of structure. Normal matter certainly forms rather consistent shapes on many different scales. What shapes would dark matter favor if it only interacts gravitationally? Wouldn't it form either a dense ball at the bottom of our galactic gravity well, or flatten into a disc with the rest of the matter in our galaxy? I don't think I've ever read any real theories on it.
Re:Dark matter? by ceoyoyo · 2014-03-07 13:12 · Score: 1

Both matter concentrating in the middle and forming disks is due to it interacting with itself. Friction, basically. Dark matter doesn't do that.
Re:Dark matter? by Lord+Lemur · 2014-03-08 00:38 · Score: 1

Doesn't it interact gravitationally with itself and normal matter?

flawed by another_gopher · 2014-03-07 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except that to do this you first assume uniform distribution of impacts wrt time...

That's silly by BenSchuarmer · 2014-03-07 12:36 · Score: 1

Everybody knows that it was Nibiru.

And scientists done in by ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 12:45 · Score: 0

cannabis ?

fuuck by strstr · 2014-03-07 13:06 · Score: 1

I believe this is real. It's on one of those other god like astro physics levels of things, that people don't understand. Like mind control, and directed-energy weapons. People don't understand shit about the universe, how cold it is, or how fucking dangerous and volatile it is ..

I think we should ditch planet earth now and focus on building an artificial planetary system which can avoid other planets, comets, energy, and other uncontrollable systems. Immediately, as soon as we can, before we ourselves parish.

Learn about mind control and directed-energy here: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Space bees by petsounds · 2014-03-07 13:16 · Score: 2

"So what if there was this giant swarm of space bees, and every 35 million years our solar system–"
"Wait. Wait, hold on. You're suggesting space bees killed the dinosaurs?"
"Not directly! These bees are huge. Moon-sized. And they live in the interstellar gaps between stars. I calculated that if their swarm passes through the Oort Cloud, they would get really upset and buzz around, and their gravitational forces would fling asteroids and comets into the solar system."
"How did you calculate that the Oort Cloud makes your hypothetical space bees angry?"
"Well it's a lot more plausible than your hypothetical invisible aether making the sun go wonky."

a bit of a flaw with this by slashmydots · 2014-03-07 13:18 · Score: 1

There's a flaw I see here. When the solar system was formed, chunks of stuff flew around in random directions and collided and there's X chance that one hits Earth. So something comes along and alters the trajectory/orbits of some of this stuff, also randomly. The probability that one hits Earth does not go up. You took something random and made it differently random. For this to be true, the vast majority of matter would regularly have to have magically been specifically not on a trajectory to eventually hit Earth ever. That simply isn't true.

I come here for the humor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 13:27 · Score: 0

Meemur meemur.

Linking Extinction To Location In Galaxy by zugedneb · 2014-03-07 14:16 · Score: 0

Linking Mass Extinctions To the Sun's Journey In the Milky Way
http://slashdot.org/story/1919...

this post might be of interest...

Dinusaur-sized grain of salt but... by Moppusan · 2014-03-07 14:48 · Score: 1

Which Dinosaur? There were lots of sizes! I need to quantify this immediately or my brain will turn into dark matter! Get it? Grey matter, dark matter...Laugh or I'll turn this solar system around and we'll go right back to the dark matter.

--
You can dance if you want to.

"Dark matter" is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 14:53 · Score: 0

There are lots of things we can not see in space simply because there is not enough energy or light. "Dark matter" is likely regular matter than is not emitting light. Big deal.

Re:"Dark matter" is bullshit by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2014-03-07 17:56 · Score: 1

it neither emits radiation or reflects it, so to our current tech it's mostly undetectable directly, although we can measure the effects it has on normal matter.

Why can't dark matter kill beta? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 15:23 · Score: 0

Fuck beta. Seriously. Get rid of slashdot beta.
Wish dark matter would squish beta into oblivion.

Re:Give LTS to mate not to Ubuntu Gnome by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-03-07 15:35 · Score: 1

"9 out of 10 Slashdot ACs we surveyed could not tell the difference between UBUNTU GNOME and a dead crab."

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Not new by BigBadBus · 2014-03-07 15:48 · Score: 1

Apart from the mention of Dark Matter, which seems to be a perennial favourite these days, this theory is not new. It was first proposed c.1986 at least.

--
My web domain.

UFOs by Tony+Isaac · 2014-03-07 17:35 · Score: 1

Dark matter is like the UFOs of astronomy. It's only called "dark" because they don't know what it is yet! UFOs are only "unidentified" until they identify the flying object. There's no reason to think that "dark matter" is something mysterious or alien, astronomers just can't see it...because it doesn't glow!

So when we go extinct, who will take over? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 18:51 · Score: 0

A bunch of cockroach humanoids?

Attention all Weyrs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 19:19 · Score: 0

Quick, we need to genetically engineer some dragons and riders to deal with this threat...

Dark matter = God poop by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-07 19:21 · Score: 0

When God poops; watch out! Creationists agree! :) "chuckles"

Something wrong with this picture.... by rts008 · 2014-03-07 20:03 · Score: 1

I think you need to recheck your math.

500 billion divided by 62 million equals 8,064.5, so I don't understand where the 130 number is coming from.

Even if you were thinking 'million' as you typed billion, 130 still makes no sense, as 500 million divided by 62 million equals 8.

Best current estimates on the age of the universe are much smaller than 500 billion, more like 14-15 billion.

Where does the 500 billion come from?

BTW, other than the maths, you made an interesting comment. :-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

Re:Something wrong with this picture.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 04:47 · Score: 0

The only place we know of that can have mass extinctions is the only place that has life, i.e. Earth. The planet has not been around for half a trillion years. Math is perfect, but interpretation is not. He was making fun of the eight thousand figure by the previous poster. The planet would need to be half a trillion years old for that figure to be right. Try it again with the age of the earth instead of 500 billion and you will see that 130 periods of 62 million is correct for some figures of the Earth's age.
Re:Something wrong with this picture.... by rts008 · 2014-03-08 09:23 · Score: 1

Where the 8,000 came from, was the original poster saying that it was 500 billion years old, with mass extinctions every 62 million, which equaled 130 events. The 8,000 was a sarcastic comment regarding the incorrect maths.
I fully understand the current known facts, and the maths.
I was just curious where the 500 billion number came from that 'MichaelDavidCrawford' was making sarcastic replies to.
Start with this comment to clear up your confusion.
Why 500 billion? Where does that number come from?
That's what started this whole mess...that linked(above) comment. 'wjcofkc' is the one that provided the 500 billion number, 'MichaelDavidCrawford' commented sarcastically about the 8,000 events to point out the math error, and then I joined in trying to find out where 'wjofkc' was getting the 500 billion number from, then you tried correcting me without knowing what started this(my guess).
Nothing more than the natural confusion when entering an ongooing conversation without the context of the 'root' of the conversation. Happens to me all the time! :-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

It's an astronomical catastrophe! Duck and cover! by rts008 · 2014-03-07 20:14 · Score: 2

Yeah, I feel 'sucker-punched' by this as well.

All of those lying, conniving scoundrals that call themselves scientists have been trying to convince me for years that the universe was only 14 1/2 billion years old.

Man, I feel old now....

Hey wait, maybe this explains the universe expanding....it's trying to catch up with the new info. Yeah, that's gotta be it. ;-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 01:56 · Score: 0

In my paper I have proven that dinosaurs were killed by thin layer of dark energy.

but gravity does distort time... as does speed of by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 02:43 · Score: 0

but gravity does distort time... as does speed of travel... actually there's not of things that don't distort time or at least our perception thereof.

dark matter and dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 06:05 · Score: 0

two hoaxes, together AT LAST!!!!!11!

Old news, much? by sgt_doom · 2014-03-08 06:41 · Score: 1

I read about this exact subject some years back, kinda late news, chum?

Not observational evidence of dark matter by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-08 08:44 · Score: 0

That observation just shows that there is something about the universe we don't know it is no more evidence of dark matters existence than it is of a faulty theoretical framework.

Dark Matter decays to Bottomonium? by 12WTF$ · 2014-03-08 20:30 · Score: 1

Article extract:

The signal is very well fit by a 31-40 GeV dark matter particle annihilating to bb_ *** with a density of 0.3 GeV/cm^3.

*** bb_ (note: that's a bottom quark and a bottom antiquark)

WIkipedia "Bottom quark":

There are many bottomonium states .... These consist of a bottom quark and its antiparticle.

Conclusion: Dark matter decays to a state of bottomonium.

--
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.

Slashdot Mirror

Dinosaurs Done In By... Dark Matter?

135 comments