to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactionsThey look like the https://commons.w...%22.png, right? How this shape could be explained by pulsars? But the dark matter doesn't form particles in common sense, so that particle-based explanation cannot be correct anyway.
Man cannot give up magic. A mundane explanation just will not do, the magic, unexplained, mysterious "Dark Matter" put there by God has to be why the universe behaves as it does.
Any other explanation is crazy,
So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.
So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.
Why, say you, can it be "a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory" when there is not even the remotest EVIDENCE the stuff exists.
So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.
Why, say you, can it be "a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory" when there is not even the remotest EVIDENCE the stuff exists.
Benni........No, it's just you trying to live in denial of your BMI in spite of the evidence you see in that body length mirror everyday.
Before you open your ignorant mouth, it helps to check your facts.
Here is the evidence;
...lack of response, calls you fat in a less than clever way...challenges you to continue to the game hopefully drawing attention away from the question left unanswered...
........No, it's just you trying to live in denial of your BMI in spite of the evidence you see in that body length mirror everyday.
You want to embark on more name calling sprees?
Oh yes, I got you.
I'd like to try again if you all don't mind................yes, we understand.
Benni........No, it's just you trying to live in denial of your BMI in spite of the evidence you see in that body length mirror everyday.
Before you open your ignorant mouth, it helps to check your facts.
Here is the evidence;
You want to embark on more name calling sprees?
-the evidence you claim doesn't exist is still there for all to see...
http://www.astro....ence.htm
I'd like to try again if you all don't mind................yes, we understand.
When you don't know what you're talking about in the first place, it becomes all the more difficult to come up with a cogent thought to make it sound like anything you have to say is relevant to subject material that is so far over your that you're drowning in irrelevancy.........there I said better than you without having to repost multiple times because unlike you I can better link the brain cells together to come up with a discernible pun.
Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of EVIDENCE.
So apparently you don't understand the concept of evidence. Why don't you study the actual science and learn something new for once and not form your opinions first.
EVIDENCE is one thing, just making stuff up to fit a theory is what is called HYPOTHESIS.
I have studies several sciences at university including physics over a period of about 12 years and with reasonable grades...but obviously nothing in nuclear physics like I have as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with almost two years worth of additional continuing education credits in my field of scientific endeavor.
currently doing some actual science researchIn what? Why are you being so deliberately vague about your so-called scientific experience? I come here making it very clear what my professional background is, but I guess you don't do it because you can't hold a candle to it? For you it's probably something in biology, right?
your engineering background doesn't make you qualified on dark matter theory nor cosmology. Before you comment on such things, you should first study them properly like I have.Oh, so you're a COSMOLOGIST? Self-explanatory
we haven't exhausted all our options. It's this conjecture that @Lenni and the rest of the anti-science crowd keep whining about. It's been pointed out repeatedly to them that the options aren't exhausted yet, but they keep whining anyway.
It is interesting you choose to criticize my education,.......what education?
Ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? Do you even know what one looks like?
Where's your theory, @Lenni?
And if you got nothin', that speaks for itself.
Well, I'd say the observational evidence you offer trivially rejects your claims. I already said that and you had no contrary argument. So like I said, you got nothin'.
This shows the orbits around the black hole: http://ircamera.a...full.gif
Now how is that evidence there are no black holes? Note that the object at the center does not move indicating it is far more massive than the stars orbiting it.......and neither are the most massive supergiants surrounding the center being pulled in, meaning there is no gravity source there, if there were we'd see a huge luminous accretion bulge pulling in all that stuff you fantasize it is doing......you continue ignoring the most poignant questions they ask.
Centers of mass don't make gravity magically. That's just silliness. Look up the shell theorem.
Benni
Mar 13, 2018What doesn't speak for itself is the airbrushed artist's rendering of a fictitious DM halo surrounding the galaxy.
If there is so much DM Cosmic Fairy Dust surrounding the galaxy, then why are there no extraordinarily high x-ray measurements emerging from the region of their airbrushed DM halo? I guess not enough RUBBING with baryonic matter?
So why can't DM particles RUB with other DM particles to create x-rays if the halo is so thick according to their airbrushing depiction? Oh, so spoonfeed the next argument to us that it's because of...........?