Ivan Samsonov said:This is a very good doc for you:
Wikipedia is always a good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Lots of articles:
https://arxiv.org/
You have misunderstood the article. This has nothing to do with dark matter.Simon Peach said:Looks like Dark matter may have been wheedled out of the spaces it inhabits as this article in the Newscientist is correct https://www.newscientist.com/articl...es-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found
hmm, I am not sure that is correct. i appears to be about mostly dark matter in fact i can see the words "dark matter" in the article not once, but a couple of times. did you click on the correct link? the internet can be tricky sometimes, my grandfather often will tell me a link doesn't work when in fact it does.phinds said:You have misunderstood the article. This has nothing to do with dark matter.
READ the article, don't just skim it for words.Kuzon said:hmm, I am not sure that is correct. i appears to be about mostly dark matter in fact i can see the words "dark matter" in the article not once, but a couple of times. did you click on the correct link? the internet can be tricky sometimes, my grandfather often will tell me a link doesn't work when in fact it does.
yeah it's a great article - did you manage to connect to it? my grandfather always messses up computer stuff too, I'm actually staying at his house at the moment! ill copy the link below. if it doesn't work then try to copy the text (click and drag) then paste it into the search bar (with right click, and a menu will pop up that says paste). PM me if you have any struggles :)! happy learning.phinds said:READ the article, don't just skim it for words.
? So you think I addressed Simon's misunderstanding AND yours both without having read the article ?Kuzon said:...did you manage to connect to it?
phinds said:?
I think you have maybe read a different article, try and see if you can open the link that Kuzon has posted that is the one the original poster was referring to. Have you had much experience with computers before ? I'm sure Kuzon would not mind answering any questions you have if you wanted to send him a private message.phinds said:? So you think I addressed Simon's misunderstanding AND yours both without having read the article ?
I can't tell if you are trolling or just seriously not paying attention to what is going on but either way, it's not looking good for you.Kuzon said:if are struggling can pm me about it a bit busy to discuss it here bud :)
have tried just right clicking the link that posted in previous post? happy to help buddy :D can help me with physics can help you with computersby the way feel free to like my post if helped!
This is REALLY getting weird. BOTH links (post #5 & post #10) point to exactly the same article. Read this thread carefully.Erenjaeger said:I think you have maybe read a different article, try and see if you can open the link that Kuzon has posted that is the one the original poster was referring to. Have you had much experience with computers before ? I'm sure Kuzon would not mind answering any questions you have if you wanted to send him a private message.
Good luck!
Oh very sorry, my apologies I didn't realize that both links were to the same article, but are you sure that is the article that you have read? Only asking because it seems although you were talking about another article, or maybe didn't understand the linked one fully? Computers sometimes do this to us !phinds said:This is REALLY getting weird. BOTH links (post #5 & post #10) point to exactly the same article. Read this thread carefully.
what? i was just try to help you out manphinds said:I can't tell if you are trolling or just seriously not paying attention to what is going on but either way, it's not looking good for you.
*I* understood the article, but others did not, thinking incorrectly that it was about a discover regarding dark matter (which is the subject of this thread). I simply pointed out that it was NOT about dark matter and then things just got weird.Erenjaeger said:Oh very sorry, my apologies I didn't realize that both links were to the same article, but are you sure that is the article that you have read? Only asking because it seems although you were talking about another article, or maybe didn't understand the linked one fully? Computers sometimes do this to us !
I am utterly at a loss to see how. You misunderstood the article that was being immediately discussed, as did Simon Peach, and I pointed that out and then you suggested that I had not read the article. You really need to go back over this thread carefully.Kuzon said:what? i was just try to help you out man
Erenjaeger said:Oh very sorry, my apologies I didn't realize that both links were to the same article, but are you sure that is the article that you have read? Only asking because it seems although you were talking about another article, or maybe didn't understand the linked one fully? Computers sometimes do this to us !
The missing links between galaxies have finally been found. This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe – protons, neutrons and electrons – unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space.
You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.
Two separate teams found the missing matter – made of particles called baryons rather than dark matter – linking galaxies together through filaments of hot, diffuse gas.
In the now-standard ΛCDM cosmology, more than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark matter and dark energy, whereas baryonic matter only comprises 4.6% (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016a; Hinshaw et al. 2013).
At high redshift (##z \gtrsim 2##), most of the expected baryons are found in the Lyαabsorption forest: the diffuse, photo-ionized intergalactic medium (IGM) with a temperature of ##10^4## - ##10^5## K (e.g.,Weinberg et al. 1997; Rauch et al. 1997). However, at redshifts ##z \lesssim 2##, the observed baryons in stars, the cold interstellar medium, residual Lyα forest gas, OVI and BLA absorbers, and hot gas in clusters of galaxies account for only ∼50% of the expected baryons– the remainder has yet to be identified ...
I guess its just all a matter of opinion isn't it haha!George Jones said:@phinds is correct. I think that you and @Kuzon should have read the New Scientist article a little more carefully. In particular, the first three paragraphs stateAt the end of the New Scientist article, there is link to the actual journal paper on which the New Scientist article is based,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05024
From the first two paagraphs:Also, did you read what @mfb and @rootone wrote in this thread?
Sorry mate, I just think it is actually you that hasn't fully understood it, maybe if we both have another read you will be able to understand. good luck my friend !phinds said:I am utterly at a loss to see how. You misunderstood the article that was being immediately discussed, as did Simon Peach, and I pointed that out and then you suggested that I had not read the article. You really need to go back over this thread carefully.
EDIT: and by the way, I DO recognize that the tone of your posts seemed to be intent on helping, but they also seemed to be completely out of touch with what was being said in the thread.
see post #22Erenjaeger said:Sorry mate, I just think it is actually you that hasn't fully understood it, maybe if we both have another read you will be able to understand. good luck my friend !
Erenjaeger said:I guess its just all a matter of opinion isn't it haha!
see post #24phinds said:see post #22
No, as George has already pointed out, it is NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You just don't seem to have been paying attention to what's being discussed in this thread and to the article that was linked to twice.Erenjaeger said:I guess its just all a matter of opinion isn't it haha!
Nah, don't feel bad. You didn't start this latter nonsense. You made a simple error which you quickly recognized and acknowledged so this is not on you.Simon Peach said:My god wish I'd never read the article incorrectly.
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter that is believed to make up approximately 85% of the total mass of the universe. It is called "dark" because it does not interact with light and therefore cannot be seen directly. Its existence is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter.
Dark matter is important because it plays a crucial role in the formation and evolution of galaxies. Without the presence of dark matter, galaxies would not have enough mass to hold their structures together. It also helps to explain the observed rotation curves of galaxies and the large-scale structure of the universe.
There are several theories about dark matter, including the cold dark matter theory, warm dark matter theory, and self-interacting dark matter theory. The cold dark matter theory proposes that dark matter is made up of slow-moving particles, while the warm dark matter theory suggests that it is made up of faster-moving particles. The self-interacting dark matter theory proposes that dark matter particles can interact with each other through a force other than gravity.
Scientists study dark matter using a variety of methods, including gravitational lensing, galaxy rotation curves, and particle accelerator experiments. Gravitational lensing involves observing the bending of light from distant objects due to the gravitational pull of dark matter. Galaxy rotation curves show the speed at which stars and gas are moving in a galaxy, which can be used to infer the presence of dark matter. Particle accelerator experiments attempt to directly detect dark matter particles by colliding particles at high speeds.
Discovering more about dark matter could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. It could also lead to advancements in technology, such as new methods for detecting and harnessing dark matter. Additionally, understanding dark matter could help solve other mysteries in the universe, such as the nature of dark energy and the origin of the universe.