Skip to main content

35 replies

Science News: Half of "missing matter" in universe found

GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
The coolest quote from the following article: "We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe,"

From
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/20/full/

Hubble Survey Finds Missing Matter, Probes Intergalactic Web

Although the universe contains billions of galaxies, only a small amount of its matter is locked up in these behemoths. Most of the universe's matter that was created during and just after the Big Bang must be found elsewhere.

Now, in an extensive search of the local universe, astronomers say they have definitively found about half of the missing normal matter, called baryons, in the spaces between the galaxies. This important component of the universe is known as the "intergalactic medium," or IGM, and it extends essentially throughout all of space, from just outside our Milky Way galaxy to the most distant regions of space observed by astronomers.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

LMMLMMOld Faithful
quote:
Now, in an extensive search of the local universe, astronomers say they have definitively found about half of the missing normal matter, called baryons, in the spaces between the galaxies



My question. How do you know you found 'half' of something if you don't know what the whole amount was? I can understand 'half a sandwich', we know the approximate size of the begining, but we don't know the size of this "Beginning".
D DeepFatOld Faithful
quote:
Not a thing Deep fat ,,I just thought yall went on facts . Wink


Astronomers know there is matter in the universe, widespread and invisible. It affects the gravitational pull between galaxies. So, they went looking for it, and now think they've found some of it.

Now that they have an observation, they will devise experiments to either prove or disprove what they "think". This is good science.

Sure, I prefer facts. On what else do we base our notions of the natural universe? Superstition, tradition, and ignorance? Not for this Sheffield boy. Our species recently wasted 1000 years trusting to gods and faiths in nothing and superstitions. What a tragic waste.

Thinking is good. Try it sometime. Be careful, though, because if you're honest with yourself, you may bruise several comfortable conclusions.

DF
ZuterZuterHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Our species recently wasted 1000 years trusting to gods and faiths in nothing and superstitions.

What if I have evidence of God in my life. You know...sorta like a 6th sense that science is incapable of explaining? Should that be totally dismissed b/c it isn't verifiable in a laboratory, or through archaeolgy?

On topic...interesting article.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
Hey Fish and Deep,

Now that science has found half of what they lost -- maybe they will also find some of your "Missing Link" fossils floating around out there. They must be out there in space -- since they have never been found on earth.

By golly, that, for sure, will prove that old Charlie Darwin was right! Y'all say a prayer for that, okay?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Forest-Sounds
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
What if I have evidence of God in my life. You know...sorta like a 6th sense that science is incapable of explaining? Should that be totally dismissed b/c it isn't verifiable in a laboratory,


Interesting question. Generally speaking, I would say no.

However, we humans have evolved the ability to discern details and reach conclusions when provided with limited information. We call it "intuition."

Evolutionary psychologists reason that our earliest ancestors needed a way to make instant judgment calls when presented with threats to survival. For example, we don't have time to "think" about whether or not to run away from the shape of a snake seen at the peripheral of our field of vision.

But that is completely different from the topic at hand. Science makes statements based on empirical evidence only. For a scientific publication to proclaim that they have "definitively found about half of the missing normal matter" in the universe is quite an amazing proclamation. The scientists who published the data better have their ducks in a row or they will be ripped to shreds by their peers.
ZuterZuterHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
What if I have evidence of God in my life. You know...sorta like a 6th sense that science is incapable of explaining? Should that be totally dismissed b/c it isn't verifiable in a laboratory,


Interesting question. Generally speaking, I would say no.

However, we humans have evolved the ability to discern details and reach conclusions when provided with limited information. We call it "intuition."

Evolutionary psychologists reason that our earliest ancestors needed a way to make instant judgment calls when presented with threats to survival. For example, we don't have time to "think" about whether or not to run away from the shape of a snake seen at the peripheral of our field of vision.

But that is completely different from the topic at hand. Science makes statements based on empirical evidence only. For a scientific publication to proclaim that they have "definitively found about half of the missing normal matter" in the universe is quite an amazing proclamation. The scientists who published the data better have their ducks in a row or they will be ripped to shreds by their peers.

Sure, and I understand my question didn't pertain to this topic specifically. I was just throwing it out. I've studied science and math, but can't deny realities in my own life regardless of what I've formally learned. Still, I'm interested in a reconciliation of two seemingly contradictory schools of thought.
D DeepFatOld Faithful
C'mon, Zut,

quote:
I'll leave it up to those around me to decide that.


You can do it. Besides, truth is not determined by majority opinion. Fashion, maybe, truth, no.

What if I told you that I have evidence, based on an old book, that a ceramic teapot is in orbit around the sun, between Venus and Jupiter? Would you believe me?

DF
ZuterZuterHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
C'mon, Zut,

quote:
I'll leave it up to those around me to decide that.


You can do it. Besides, truth is not determined by majority opinion. Fashion, maybe, truth, no.

What if I told you that I have evidence, based on an old book, that a ceramic teapot is in orbit around the sun, between Venus and Jupiter? Would you believe me?

DF

Why the derision?
ZuterZuterHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by Zuter:
Still, I'm interested in a reconciliation of two seemingly contradictory schools of thought.


As I once did, too.

Be it god, physics or missing baryonic mass, we are all in search of "truth," I suppose. Some of us obviously have different definitions of the term.

You're a physicist?
hoss galhoss galPost Master
i have never understood why the idea of god and the idea of evolution/science basis of the universe were mutually exclusive (?) i mean, if there is a god, couldn't he or she have created the universe in a scientific, orderly way?

i understand that the bible doesn't talk about atoms and natural selection, but why would it? a real god wouldn't explain all that in a holy book, anyway. he'd let us develop a brain and figure it out.

i have never seen that the two ideas are in such great opposition. that may be, though, because i have always been a freethinker about religion (or lack thereof).
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
So the last time I was reading the forums, you were going through your creationist/intelligent design proponent phase. I take it you've recovered.


I waffle, Rhia. I have been working on an essay concerning cancer and rheumatoid arthritis as further proof of intelligent design. That was sidetracked when I stumbled across the fact that Jesus, er, I mean The Creator, invented over 250,000 different distinct species of beetle. Why, it is as if He could not make up his mind on the most intelligent design of the beetle.

I am struggling, friend. It is good to have you back.
miamizsunmiamizsunHall of Famer
Science doesn't seek to disprove religion, it is seeking intellectual honesty.

When religious beliefs infer that our world or our universe are too "big" for our understanding, what happens when science advances the power of human intellect/knowledge (and vice versa) with evidence and/or theory that demonstrates the truth/accuracy of an assertion?

If it is in conflict with an ancient prophecy/story, do we disregard it despite the current evidence?

If we do, we do so at our own peril.

I encourage you to remove the emotion and sentiment, and focus on objective conversation.

Is that always possible? Of course not, there are serious consequences riding on beliefs today. It is up to you to examine your own belief and reasoning, and where it fits in with civilized society today.

regards, miamizsun
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Science doesn't seek to disprove religion, it is seeking intellectual honesty.

When religious beliefs infer that our world or our universe are too "big" for our understanding, what happens when science advances the power of human intellect/knowledge (and vice versa) with evidence and/or theory that demonstrates the truth/accuracy of an assertion?

If it is in conflict with an ancient prophecy/story, do we disregard it despite the current evidence?

If we do, we do so at our own peril.

I encourage you to remove the emotion and sentiment, and focus on objective conversation.

Is that always possible? Of course not, there are serious consequences riding on beliefs today. It is up to you to examine your own belief and reasoning, and where it fits in with civilized society today.

regards, miamizsun

Hi Miami,

To date, archeology has had many finds which prove the Bible to be true -- and not one single find which disproves the Bible. So, we feel safe that God says what He means, and means what He says.

Keep in mind: the Bible contains over 1800 prophesies -- and not one has failed to be true; proven by both Biblical and secular sources. Sounds like a horse I would be on in the race of life.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
miamizsunmiamizsunHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Science doesn't seek to disprove religion, it is seeking intellectual honesty.

When religious beliefs infer that our world or our universe are too "big" for our understanding, what happens when science advances the power of human intellect/knowledge (and vice versa) with evidence and/or theory that demonstrates the truth/accuracy of an assertion?

If it is in conflict with an ancient prophecy/story, do we disregard it despite the current evidence?

If we do, we do so at our own peril.

I encourage you to remove the emotion and sentiment, and focus on objective conversation.

Is that always possible? Of course not, there are serious consequences riding on beliefs today. It is up to you to examine your own belief and reasoning, and where it fits in with civilized society today.

regards, miamizsun

Hi Miami,

To date, archeology has had many finds which prove the Bible to be true -- and not one single find which disproves the Bible. So, we feel safe that God says what He means, and means what He says.

Keep in mind: the Bible contains over 1800 prophesies -- and not one has failed to be true; proven by both Biblical and secular sources. Sounds like a horse I would be on in the race of life.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill, science(like the evidence pointing to evolution) and archeology(esp fossils dated over 6000 years) don't jibe with the Bible.

regards, miamizsun
S smurphPost Master
"Although the universe contains billions of galaxies, only a small amount of its matter is locked up in these behemoths. Most of the universe's matter that was created during and just after the Big Bang must be found elsewhere."
The above is straight from the article. it states reference to the Big Bang,as tho it is fact,last I read the Big bang was STILL in the theory level and nothing had yet been proven.
very misleading to say the least.
CrustyMacCrustyMacOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by hoss gal:
i have never understood why the idea of god and the idea of evolution/science basis of the universe were mutually exclusive (?) i mean, if there is a god, couldn't he or she have created the universe in a scientific, orderly way?

i understand that the bible doesn't talk about atoms and natural selection, but why would it? a real god wouldn't explain all that in a holy book, anyway. he'd let us develop a brain and figure it out.

i have never seen that the two ideas are in such great opposition. that may be, though, because i have always been a freethinker about religion (or lack thereof).


Good points. The Scholastics agree with you. The fundamentalists don't.
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
The above is straight from the article. it states reference to the Big Bang,as tho it is fact,last I read the Big bang was STILL in the theory level


This is a very common misconception by those not knowledgeable of science. The Big Bang has been proven about as soundly as gravitational theory and atomic theory, Smurph. Do you question whether or nor gravity exists or that nuclear power lights your home?

"Theory" in science is quite different from "theory" used in common usage.

Please educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×