UBC astronomer makes first map of dark matter
Newsbot @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:50 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=29042" target="_blank">UBC astronomer makes first map of dark matter</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/9-science" target="_blank">Science</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=-Mario-" target="_blank">-Mario-</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-01-14 04:22:10
<strong>Canadian</strong>
BluesBud @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:05 pm
Oops, goofed again. 
Dat's me above. I do have to sign in faster next time. 
Zipperfish @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:14 pm
They said they detected teh dark matter because it was distorting light the way a massive gravitational froce would--so how do they know they're not looking at a black hole? ow do they telll the difference between a black hole and dark matter. Presumabl;y theblack hole would be a relatively small area of space (technically, it's a point source), and the dark matter would be dispersed. Also, I wonder why the dark matter in that region is dense. The calucalted concentration here in this part of space is one atom per 10 cubic centimeters.
sasquatch2 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:28 am
That link doesn't seem to exist....which is current science on dark matter-----a theoretical concept unproven to exist.
Thanos @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:40 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
They said they detected teh dark matter because it was distorting light the way a massive gravitational froce would--so how do they know they're not looking at a black hole? ow do they telll the difference between a black hole and dark matter. Presumabl;y theblack hole would be a relatively small area of space (technically, it's a point source), and the dark matter would be dispersed. Also, I wonder why the dark matter in that region is dense. The calucalted concentration here in this part of space is one atom per 10 cubic centimeters.
Somehow it's gotta be Stephen Harper's fault.
Stupid sexy Flanders!
TheQuietKidd @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:02 am
Thanos Thanos:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
They said they detected teh dark matter because it was distorting light the way a massive gravitational froce would--so how do they know they're not looking at a black hole? ow do they telll the difference between a black hole and dark matter. Presumabl;y theblack hole would be a relatively small area of space (technically, it's a point source), and the dark matter would be dispersed. Also, I wonder why the dark matter in that region is dense. The calucalted concentration here in this part of space is one atom per 10 cubic centimeters.
Somehow it's gotta be Stephen Harper's fault.
Stupid sexy Flanders!
Your avatar still scares the shit out of me...
sasquatch2 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:19 am
Zipperfish wrote:
$1:
Presumabl;y theblack hole would be a relatively small area of space (technically, it's a point source), and the dark matter would be dispersed.
Gee science is not your strong suit is it?
Blacks holes are detectable recently because of the X-rays emitted by their event horizons. Event horizons are the gravitation field generated by the black hole which IS a singularity. Event horizons are vast.
Even truck drivers know that!
Zipperfish @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:21 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Zipperfish wrote:
Gee science is not your strong suit is it?
Blacks holes are detectable recently because of the X-rays emitted by their event horizons. Event horizons are the gravitation field generated by the black hole which IS a singularity. Event horizons are vast.
Even truck drivers know that!
$1:
Presumabl;y theblack hole would be a relatively small area of space (technically, it's a point source), and the dark matter would be dispersed.
Gee science is not your strong suit is it?
Blacks holes are detectable recently because of the X-rays emitted by their event horizons. Event horizons are the gravitation field generated by the black hole which IS a singularity. Event horizons are vast.
Even truck drivers know that!
Yes, I'm sure you cut and pasted that from some website, like every other time to try to pass yourself off as semi-intelligent, because it's clear from your comments that (as usual) you have no real grasp of what you're talking about.
While I'm glad that I appear to give your pathetic existence some meaning, do you really think it's that healthy for you to stalk people on the internet? I think it would be very therapeutic for you if you try to read through one of my posts without posting something bigoted, insolent and/or mind-numbingly stupid.
sasquatch2 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Zipperfish
$1:
Yes, I'm sure you cut and pasted that from some website,
Damn! I will take that as a left handed compliment. Naw i typed that right off the cuff based upon my rather shallow knowledge of these celestial matters----which is obviously much deeper than yours.
Is that what you do? Stalk?---thats trolling.
hurley_108 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:54 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Gee science is not your strong suit is it?
Blacks holes are detectable recently because of the X-rays emitted by their event horizons. Event horizons are the gravitation field generated by the black hole which IS a singularity. Event horizons are vast.
Blacks holes are detectable recently because of the X-rays emitted by their event horizons. Event horizons are the gravitation field generated by the black hole which IS a singularity. Event horizons are vast.
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Damn! I will take that as a left handed compliment. Naw i typed that right off the cuff based upon my rather shallow knowledge of these celestial matters----which is obviously much deeper than yours.
Is that what you do? Stalk?---thats trolling.
Is that what you do? Stalk?---thats trolling.
Nope. Sorry. Your knowledge of black holes is sorely lacking.
No x-rays can be emitted by the event horizon of a black hole. The event horizon is the point at which escape velocity equals the speed of light. As such, the event horizon is the point at which light can no longer escape from the black hole. Any x-ray emitted at that point would be trapped.
Any x-ray emitted even just outside that point would be severely red-shifted by the gravitational field into the radio spectrum or lower. X
X-rays are not inherently emitted by black holes in the first place. Matter drawn in from something else, a star or a gas cloud, is pulled in by the gravity, heating up as it loses potential energy, and becoming so hot that it emits x-rays. This is not a "recent" discovery either, it was detected in the 70s.
Event horizons are not necessarily vast, either. Quite the opposite. A stellar black hole (the remnant of a supernova) could conceivably have a mass as low as just 2 or 3 solar masses. A black hole of this mass would have a Schwarzschild radius (the radius of the sphere that is the event horizon) of just a few tens of kilometers. These would be incredibly compact objects. "Vast" would not be a word used by anyone to describe them.