The Klan Is Not Going To Be Happy About This

[Minimalist]

[purplepurpose]

Fanatical Theists: Those scientists are Satan's slave, they are lying.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Probably the most ludicrous 'justification' I've ever heard from theists as to why they reject the findings of science runs something like, 'Science can't be trusted, because researchers falsify results to obtain grant money.'  While this is certainly true on occasion (scientists are human, and have the potential to be just as venal as anyone else), theists couch this argument in such a way as to suggest that all scientists are simply swimming in grant money, surreptitiously using public funds to finance their lifestyles of flash cars, easy women, and solid gold bog seats.

So, for any professional scientists here at AF, kindly return the chinchilla coats, the Lambos, and that nude ice sculpture of Carl Sagan you keep in your walk in freezer, and get the fuck back to work.

Boru

[shadow]

Probably the most ludicrous 'justification' I've ever heard from theists as to why they reject the findings of science runs something like, 'Science can't be trusted, because researchers falsify results to obtain grant money.'  While this is certainly true on occasion (scientists are human, and have the potential to be just as venal as anyone else), theists couch this argument in such a way as to suggest that all scientists are simply swimming in grant money, surreptitiously using public funds to finance their lifestyles of flash cars, easy women, and solid gold bog seats.

So, for any professional scientists here at AF, kindly return the chinchilla coats, the Lambos, and that nude ice sculpture of Carl Sagan you keep in your walk in freezer, and get the fuck back to work.

Boru

This is my pet peeve too. People try to use this to argue against Climate Change - that it's greedy climate scientists trying to fake cilmate change for grant money.
Do they realize that the opposition is literally THE OIL INDUSTRY and THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY. The Climate Research Industry is probably 1/1000th the size of those who have good reason to pretend climate change isn't happening. It's pretty obvious which side the greed is on.

[Jackie]

I dont get it.

The Raw Story Article does provide a sourced link early on under blue "here", and that takes you to a college research article. But what am I missing? The Raw Story article talks about proof of dark matter, but the college article talks about the behavior of hydrogen atoms and going back to the 180,000,000 years after the big bang. What do the behaviors of hydrogen atoms have to do with "dark matter"?

[Joods]

Probably the most ludicrous 'justification' I've ever heard from theists as to why they reject the findings of science runs something like, 'Science can't be trusted, because researchers falsify results to obtain grant money.'  While this is certainly true on occasion (scientists are human, and have the potential to be just as venal as anyone else), theists couch this argument in such a way as to suggest that all scientists are simply swimming in grant money, surreptitiously using public funds to finance their lifestyles of flash cars, easy women, and solid gold bog seats.

So, for any professional scientists here at AF, kindly return the chinchilla coats, the Lambos, and that nude ice sculpture of Carl Sagan you keep in your walk in freezer, and get the fuck back to work.

Boru

[polymath257]

I dont get it.

The Raw Story Article does provide a sourced link early on under blue "here", and that takes you to a college research article. But what am I missing? The Raw Story article talks about proof of dark matter, but the college article talks about the behavior of hydrogen atoms and going back to the 180,000,000 years after the big bang. What do the behaviors of hydrogen atoms have to do with "dark matter"?

That's a very good question. What happens is that dark matter affects the rate of universal expansion, and thereby of the cooling that leads to the formation of hydrogen atoms (as opposed to ions, which were there before). So, the amount of dark matter determines *when* those hydrogen atoms form. And *that* leaves a signature on the background radiation, which is what was detected here. There also seems to be a higher level than expected of interaction between the dark matter and ordinary matter at that point--which is very interesting. This also affected the cooling rate.

So the point is that the rate of expansion (and hence, the cooling) is affected by dark matter and *that* is what we are detecting.

Unfortunately, such indirect measurements are required for dark matter because dark matter doesn't interact strongly with light or ordinary matter (hence, why it is termed 'dark'). So we can only really detect it through its gravitational effects (or, if a certain type of particle, by its decay--not done yet, but possible). In this case, it is the gravitational effects changing the rate of expansion at the stage where hydrogen atoms are formed.

[Jackie]

I dont get it.

The Raw Story Article does provide a sourced link early on under blue "here", and that takes you to a college research article. But what am I missing? The Raw Story article talks about proof of dark matter, but the college article talks about the behavior of hydrogen atoms and going back to the 180,000,000 years after the big bang. What do the behaviors of hydrogen atoms have to do with "dark matter"?

That's a very good question. What happens is that dark matter affects the rate of universal expansion, and thereby of the cooling that leads to the formation of hydrogen atoms (as opposed to ions, which were there before). So, the amount of dark matter determines *when* those hydrogen atoms form. And *that* leaves a signature on the background radiation, which is what was detected here. There also seems to be a higher level than expected of interaction between the dark matter and ordinary matter at that point--which is very interesting. This also affected the cooling rate.

So the point is that the rate of expansion (and hence, the cooling) is affected by dark matter and *that* is what we are detecting.

Unfortunately, such indirect measurements are required for dark matter because dark matter doesn't interact strongly with light or ordinary matter (hence, why it is termed 'dark'). So we can only really detect it through its gravitational effects (or, if a certain type of particle, by its decay--not done yet, but possible). In this case, it is the gravitational effects changing the rate of expansion at the stage where hydrogen atoms are formed.

It seems to be a long universal tool of discovery in science, that when we can't detect something directly we study indirectly the objects we can detect, just like we cant see into a black hole, but can see the effects of the matter around the even horizon. 

So if I am reading you correctly the behavior of hydrogen atoms and ions are how we are indirectly studying dark matter based on gravity?

[polymath257]

That's a very good question. What happens is that dark matter affects the rate of universal expansion, and thereby of the cooling that leads to the formation of hydrogen atoms (as opposed to ions, which were there before). So, the amount of dark matter determines *when* those hydrogen atoms form. And *that* leaves a signature on the background radiation, which is what was detected here. There also seems to be a higher level than expected of interaction between the dark matter and ordinary matter at that point--which is very interesting. This also affected the cooling rate.

So the point is that the rate of expansion (and hence, the cooling) is affected by dark matter and *that* is what we are detecting.

Unfortunately, such indirect measurements are required for dark matter because dark matter doesn't interact strongly with light or ordinary matter (hence, why it is termed 'dark'). So we can only really detect it through its gravitational effects (or, if a certain type of particle, by its decay--not done yet, but possible). In this case, it is the gravitational effects changing the rate of expansion at the stage where hydrogen atoms are formed.

It seems to be a long universal tool of discovery in science, that when we can't detect something directly we study indirectly the objects we can detect, just like we cant see into a black hole, but can see the effects of the matter around the even horizon. 

So if I am reading you correctly the behavior of hydrogen atoms and ions are how we are indirectly studying dark matter based on gravity?

That is my understanding, yes. I haven't read the detailed paper, though. When I do, I'll report any mistakes I have made.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Come to the Dark Matter side, we have .... whatever this shit is..."