Answer: How is dark matter detected?

[TRP360]

Answer: I has not been detected yet.

[sphericalpyramid]

Typical. The one and only answer to this question is "I don't know." That was a veritable barrage of unfounded speculation regarding a concept that is purely theoretical in nature. His buddy tells him that they'll be able to detect it in 10-20 years? How the hell would he know? I think on matters such as these, science should readily admit its ignorance - and not make pseudo-authoritative claims that are completely unfounded. Hey Mr. Glasses: you don't know!

[asphixa]

@sphericalpyramid You don't know neither so shut the hell up... At least they're trying. And eventually your life will get better by it..

[TheDreamMechanic]

@asphixa

Oh really?  And just how is this lifeless puppet with glasses going to make my life better? Maybe I'll be the one who comes up with my own answer. Maybe I won't. But I will never accept a creditless, speculative idea such as "dark matter." The infinitely ambiguous terminology itself should tip you off. They're trying, alright. They're trying to continually prop up that dinosaur of a creation story dreamed up in the 1920s. It's old and tired, brother. Get over it.

[Glennfalconi]

@TheDreamMechanic Yes. But they also EXPLAIN WHY THEY DON'T KNOW. How could you expect that WE; bacterias made to crap on the planet to keep the grounds fresh, know how this very place excisted? More important. Why WOULD you want to know? Let me just make it simple. You'll NEVER KNOW how this ever developed when there was nothing in the beginning. And for fucks sake. Stop trying to make fun of this guy by calling him 'lifeless' just because he's super intelligent or because he's wearing glasses.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@Glennfalconi

Bacterias made to crap on the planet to keep the grounds fresh? Sounds like you have a low opinion of both yourself and others, which is a personal problem, and therefore immaterial. Why WOULD I want to know? Why else are we HERE? We're here to experience the rapture of life; its beauty, and its MYSTERY. Of course we'll never know how this all began. That's my whole point. Tell that to the puppet in glasses. I'm making fun of him because what he's saying is a joke.

[Glennfalconi]

@TheDreamMechanic A low opinion? Hmm. Have you got any better THEORY? You can't decide what opinion is wrong or right. Who the fuck knows how all of this ever was made out of nothing. If someone actually had the answer. I'm sure lots of people would start killing theirselfs. The reason why? I don't know. And this dude picks his words rather carefully. He didn't state the big bang theory. Some dude did it 90 years ago. But most of the shit he says is right.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@Glennfalconi

It's "themselves"...and no, the "shit" he is saying isn't right. "Some dude"...are you referring to Hubble, the guy who theorized the universe was expanding, or Hoyle, the guy who off-handedly described such a nonsensical theory as "the big bang" (and it stuck)? Actually, yes I do have an alternative theory that I find absolutely fascinating, namely Plasma Cosmology. It's sensical, observable, testable, and makes no claims on universal origin; it's about how it works.

[Glennfalconi]

@TheDreamMechanic Yeah buddy. There is no point in trying to attempt to change my thoughts. You're even ranting about it in the wrong video. This video has litteraly nothing to do with anything CLOSE to the big bang.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@Glennfalconi

It's big bang cosmology, silly boy. You're actually right...the two have nothing to do with each other, because neither of them are correct.

[Glennfalconi]

@TheDreamMechanic I must belive it when a random youtuber claims to know it better than a astronomer? Thanks for the correction btw. Sadly i couldn't give a fuck. It's not that relevant to what we are talking about. Why exactly do you find it strange i call a guy that suggested somthing a ''random dude''? You called this man a 'muppet with glasses'? His full name is JOHN MATHER. I find it ok that your thoughts are diffrent. But your opinion is important for only YOURSELF.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@Glennfalconi

John Mather, eh? Even his name is boring.

Random youtuber, eh? Yeah, "I" am a dime a dozen.

And it's "puppet" with glasses, not "muppet." I would never insult Jim Henson's genius like that.

[Glennfalconi]

@TheDreamMechanic And i apologize for the double posting mistake. I wasn't entirely sure that it was posted so i decided to do it again.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@Glennfalconi

No worries. =)

[jailstop]

What a wonderful channel! I am glad I found it!

[ridelo]

If dark matter exists is it then also concentrated in galaxies or is it spread even trough the universe?

[DrWinstonRelthford]

@ridelo Typically it resides in halos around galaxies, though there are isolated halos of dark matter.

[DavidYeshiwas]

Is the inverse of this theory possible, that if we provide energy, we would receive more? This is the basis of alchemy.

[carusggg]

ideology is not necessary in science at all , perhaps as i said is necessary in the social life of man but not in science.

[PeaceProfit]

With patients, determination, diligence and vigilance... one shall succeed...

[carusggg]

this are good in everything of course , but even so science is not an ideological base (or wasn't before 400 years of mathematics and somehow wasn't at all...) and however they don't even know what is matter far to be able to speak about "dark matter" or "anti-matter". About the theory of "quantum gravity" which says that we need particles and wait for our weight to change 7 minutes before we "get" gravity from sun i don't want to speak. In science we nee definitions and clear thinking more.

[PeaceProfit]

i*agree, yet all human endeavor has its elements of ideological theory, which by patients, determination, diligence and vigilance, more clear thinking and true definitions will prevail, especially in science, but hopefully in faith and politics as well ;)

other*wise success is doubtful...

C.H.A.O.S.

[carusggg]

they have them but many of them are just arise illusions and morality which in science don't have any place despite they seem useful in politics and sometimes even in religion.

[PeaceProfit]

yes*indeed, yet again many science and engineering advancements have and do, come originally from the realm of fiction, based purely upon and ideological whimsy and fanciful imagination, which leads one to ponder the validity of removing such thought completely from any discipline, as it is such an integral aspect of the human condition.

Would such a reality speed or retard the species advancement... i*think it would at the very least induce a general lethargy, even in science...

[carusggg]

actually without ideology would be more ideas because ideology proposes just one set of ideas and one vision when philosophy do more than that; many of our advancements are not a result of ideology but of philosophy as philosophers put first this ideas without make them ideologies.

[PeaceProfit]

ideology:

a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy

• the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual

1• archaic the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature

2• archaic visionary speculation, esp. of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

Who's SET of ideas do YOU propose to remove... and why should it NOT be YOURS ???

[carusggg]

the visionary speculation of course and this because they don't belong in real ration but in intuition which even if could be right many times is wrong ; the other ones seem useful.

[PeaceProfit]

So YOU become the oppressor... deciding what is right, wrong or useful...

Those who use sight without vision, simply see what is put in front of them.

C.H.A.O.S.

[carusggg]

not those few and great who have the power to do more than just speaking about visions , is without imagination that they couldn't acheive great things without being visionary and being just realists.

[PeaceProfit]

deciding which few are great, powerful, imaginative, and doing what YOU perceive as MORE or adequately useful to social development... a cult of realists.

[carusggg]

any rational thing is not integrated in a rational cult because the propriety of being rational make them to not be so

[PeaceProfit]

ahhhhhhh yes, the rationality of logic is the last and greatest bastion of deception...

Delusion is fears most insidious and invisible weapon...

Be*Well...

[carusggg]

what i am saying is simply that a cult need beliefs but ration is about certain facts or at least facts that could be completly bring on them steps by the use of logic. Is stupid to make a cult from facts like that you see tree apples on a table even if you actually could do it but if you do then it doesn't have any more to do with ration. The delusion is the most important step in really understanding man heart but this probably just after adventure.

[PeaceProfit]

yes*indeed, yet no "fact" can ever be completely rationalized, as it's perspective is from a limited point of reference, ie: Planet*Earth... so without complete knowledge of the universe, one is simply a visionary speculating from a distant view...

[carusggg]

visionary speculation don't have to do with science, perhaps with philosophy but not with science.

[PeaceProfit]

No*Doubt, i*am wrong... and so, subject to dismissal...

your facts being, indisputable...

[carusggg]

yes you are wrong , you think that science have something to do with idealistic vision and speculation which of course is not true.

[PeaceProfit]

Of*Course, that's how YOU BELIEVE, i*think, so it's important that you also prove ME wrong, i*am simply offering you an opportunity to step beyond your stereotypical views of others... the choice to ignore and not comprehend the truth of my*views is entirely yours...

as usual, your opinion is indisputable...

Good*Luck & Have*Fun

[carusggg]

you seem to not be a rational thinker , my points are clear and simple to understand. The fact that you have the problem of changing your wrong opinions because at a more attentive look are wrong don't have to do with me to much not with my believes. In science we need also maturity in thinking but that isn't necessary in ideological thinking and i would say that the way of science is superior to the primitive believer ; is not a choice to not comprehend "truths" but a correction of your think.

[PeaceProfit]

once again, more opinion of my motivation and thinking, and NOW also placing YOURSELF above and superior to the "primitive believer", which no doubt you see me as, while offering correction...

For one who claims to be a rationalist, your grand fantasy of removing ideology from science preformed by humans is, akin to the illusional division between church and state, both of which would require removing about six billion individuals from the global population...

Go for It...

[carusggg]

wasn't with direction or sense referring to you (or at least i didn't tought in that way when i was writing it) but of course could be said probably that indeed are a primitive believer since you speak about things with passion but no maturity. Perhaps church belong to the state but church don't belong to science in the same way illusions don't belong in science. If they are not rational they don't have to do with science but with religion and believes.

[PeaceProfit]

to separate ideology, faith, belief, culture, design, behavior etc. etc. etc. from science and/or rational thinking is simply not dealing in reality, for all these aspects of the human condition, are the very qualities which make up said condition... and as such, are integral and necessary components to the direction of it's scientific future development

It's not possible rational or logical to remove these aspect from human endeavor thinking or acting upon such lines is folly and doom to fail.

[PeaceProfit]

Why does your species allocate trillions of dollars to go into space ??? is it to end poverty, stop war, find more real estate... NO, your ideological, cultural and visionary speculations, draw the development of your scientific desires to go forth, and improve the very ideological pit falls which took you there.

You are evolving a sustainable scientific, moral, ideology, to improve the species...

as any*thing less or separate from that reality will not succeed.

[carusggg]

ideology is a stupid thing for rational persons , mans could go into space just because they are curious and they like challenges ; it doesn't mean at all that they have a idealistic vision but that they want to satisfy this desire and therefore that they are pragmatic.

[PeaceProfit]

Fear was the first virtual reality created by man religion second, war third & War*Craft the current virtual reality encompassing all aspects of the previous versions all of these realities can be measured quantified and broken down into caloric input and output their energy & mass affects the human condition and all aspects of its being, occupy space time thought decision words actions, all due to human scientific advancement separating this reality is not rational as science has created it.

[PeaceProfit]

ideology may be stupid, yet it is a reality created by the science of your being, man choose to create it and he can choose to abandoned it, yet he is many generations away from becoming a purely pragmatic species and in fact his DNA may not be capable of such a complete departure from its development, time will tell... if you survive the current situation.

[carusggg]

it is stupid in science or in the context where it is used in science; ideology used to defeat ideology is weak in the face of ration is not a problem of evolution but of using rigurous definitions and stay on earth even if you want to go in space.

[PeaceProfit]

i*have never stated that it is not stupid, simply that it is a reality that MUST be considered, as.... one who denies a reality that others are willing to kill and die for, simply weakens their own ability to alter that reality...

which is of course y/our goal.

[carusggg]

my goal is to prevent others of searching black cats in a black room where is not even rational for the cat to be there not to alter the reality that a cat is there.

[PeaceProfit]

yet the cat is there, to one who believes it is... so if you are to attain your goal, science alone will not prevent them from looking, this requires that science alter the ideology it has created in those who look for the cat.

[carusggg]

the cat is not there , is just in your mind and as long as it isn't about ration it isn't about science so science is a pretty yes or no thing.

[carusggg]

i know is hard to accept reality because it is not so beautifull as ideology , but serious science which will not have any other mistakes require such an approach.

[PeaceProfit]

ideology sucks, their it nothing beautiful about it... do not attempt to place words and opinion into my*truth...

"serious science" "not have any other mistakes"

what fantasy world do you live on... science is 90% mistakes to attain a 10% perception that will change, with future development...

[carusggg]

ideology gave the mans wars after wars and needed ration to go from war to peace , and the i peace is nothing but sickness. A discussion on believes is so frustrating for both of the persons because it doesn't involve ration. But not just that it is barbareous and primitive , it wants a place in science which can't be accepted for serious thinkers and 90% of science is made from mistakes just because at a time there wasn't or ration (is the case of GR and quantum stuff) or empirical proofs.

[PeaceProfit]

Science must be used to change science, ideology to alter ideology, science can shift ideology, yet it can not change it, this requires the clear, rigorous definitions of a developing ideology, which fits the reality of science.

[carusggg]

science don't shift ideology , science or destroys ideology and beliefs or confirms it. The problem with ideology is that there is nothing to confirm. Science perfect and develop itself following the steps of ration which don't have to be an ideology and perfects itself by corecting the mistakes of the past, the wrong ideas being eliminated by the use of ration.

[PeaceProfit]

'i have become the destroyer of worlds", this is the reality which you propose, the very reality which has brought your species to the abyss...

science destroys ideology, developing it's own perceived version of perfection...

simply becoming that which it has destroyed...

The Destroyer

Good*Luck & Have*Fun.. with your war on ideology.

[carusggg]

science can't became ideology by being rational all the time. I propose ration and that who don't accept it are not healthy enough to not believing in fairy-tales and enjoy the nature of this reality which even if it isn't so beautiful can be more healthier and more profound. It isn't an war on ideology it is simple the result of using ration , it can be interpret as "war" on it by those who want but this wouldn't be ration and therefore the only persons who could tell this are ideiologists.

[PeaceProfit]

Justification by what ever means, is by no means vindication, using ration to justify ones actions, will not bring about vindication, beyond ones own rational process... which can not be proven beyond that process, until further knowledge of the complete universal reality is obtained.

[carusggg]

well , powerful arguments and a clear mind is good to make healthy a mind which is captive into ideology and illusions.

[PeaceProfit]

yes*indeed, for those who rely strictly upon ideology, or illusion, or science, will find only the delusion placed in front of them by a singular discipline devoid of the realities which brought them to their captivity, as even science holds it victims, until clarity is realized...

[PeaceProfit]

...and if you think i*am a captive of ideology or illusions, then you have been mistaken, i*simply have a different approach to the inevitable alteration of that which FEAR holds so dearly onto... the consciousness of humanity....

[carusggg]

no , i didn't thought in that way