/sci/ - Science & Math

0/10. Next time properly spell words so we know you're not trying too hard.

>>1435471
Gravity: No ones ever seen it, heard it, felt it, tasted it, smelled it or touched it. BUT WHERE PRETTY SURE IT EXISTS!

Just like OP and women... never felt it, tasted it, smelled it or touched it.

Only seen and heard in porn.

>>1435480


ummm....gravity? I'm pretty sure I'm feeling it right now in my battle chair

>>1435471

Ultraviolet Radiation: No ones ever seen it, heard it, felt it, tasted it, smelled it or touched it. BUT WHERE PRETTY SURE IT EXISTS!

>>1435471

let me guess, you believe in god too.

shitty touchup job on OPs pic.

she probably has A cups but they stretched out her tits all weird to make them look bigger. look how wide they are, that's not normal >_>

also visible artifacts of slimming her sides up all over the place.

The 4rth dimension... that is all, fucking /sci/entists will cling to anything widely believed to have to exist but not proven...

/sci/ fucking disgusts me

>>1435493

>>1435503

>in depth knowledge on shooped bodies
>will never know a body in person

it's ok, little guy. calm down, we won't hurt you :D

>>1435520

>implying i didn't have sex with a dozen different girls when i was younger before i drank too much for too long and lost faith in humanity and became an introverted fuck and stopped going outside.

The inside of a brick: No ones ever seen it, heard it, felt it, tasted it, smelled it or touched it. BUT WHERE PRETTY SURE IT EXISTS!

>>1435549

>implying you did

>>1435549
>implying anybody gives a fuck at all

>>1435560

>implying you aren't projecting and that my personal failures in life perfectly mirror your own

>>1435471
We know it exists because we can see it interacting gravitaionally with other visible objects. It seems to be the most logical explantion as such.

>>1435576
>seems to be
remember it's only a theory

>>1435549

>>1435566

>implying i wasn't directly replying to a post that clearly did give a fuck at all

>>1435549
>>1435520 here

congrats, but thicken up that skin a bit, you're taking words on a screen far too srsly

>>1435615

>implying you aren't just scared because i would totally pwn you in an argument

>>1435576

>implying that our math is good enough to understand reality so of course 96% of the universe must be made of invisible matter and energy that we cannot detect at all.

rule 34 on dark matter or it's not real

HOW TO TROLL HUMANITY

dark matter and energy have no mass and do not interact with matter in any way except gravitationally

GOOD LUCK DETECTING IT

>>1435631

depends on what we're arguing about, and i'd be more curious to learn what you know rather than scared about your potentially knowing more than me. i'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but so what? no sense in shitting my pants over that when i can learn moar

>>1435631

What's more likely? That the majority of the universe is made up of a type of matter that cannot be detected in any way and does not match our predictions during galactic collisions? Or that our understanding of gravity at large distances (past the solar system) is not complete? Go look up any one of the several modified gravity theorems. There have been many observations of celestial objects that fly in the face of predictions based on dark matter causing the discrepancies in masses/gravity.

>>1435727

Black matter is simply a quack science phrase invented by jews to promote the social escalation of negros in the science community for their own nefarious reasons. What those reasons are precisely I do not know!

I'm not a physics major and my major only required mechanics etc and I have no idea how to quantify most of this.

But what bugs me is that photons that are red shifted due to universal space expansion are losing energy, but the only good explanation I've heard of this is that conservation of energy only applies locally and so this doesn't violate conservation.

If you think about it there has been a fuck ton of energy to go missing this way since the beginning of the universe, for instance the microwave background radiation is redshifted by very large factors, and have dropped from extremely energetic gamma rays down to just microwaves now.

Could this somehow be the dark energy that is causing the expansion?

>>1436156
That's what Modified Gravity theory addresses - not only is the universe expanding / matter flying away from us, the rate at which it does so is accelerating. It is believed that space is flat, not curved; so it's not like matter is "rolling down a hill." So there must be something pushing or pulling for the expansion to be speeding up.

Scientists have worked under the assumption that our current gravity theory is correct - a combination of Newton for close objects and Einstein relativity for further objects. So they've hypothesized undetectable dark matter to fix discrepancies in the observed data. Unfortunately even with this adjustment, the rotational spin of some galaxies indicates that there would have to be a ridiculous amount of dark matter compared to visible matter to make this work.

I mentioned modified gravity theory up above - I like MOG - it has been shown to work for many celestial observations. Gravity decreases as distance increases (per the usual theory); but past a point - further than solar system - it actually starts to increase again. It may not be "gravity" per se but another force that comes into play as gravity drops off.

So those are two big options - huge amounts of invisible matter, or a modified gravity theory. Or maybe the universe is so vast that space looks flat to us from our location; but the visible universe around us may be a drop in the bucket and maybe it does curve in a way we can't notice from this vantage point.

We can detect its gravitational effect, so its something.

>>1436741
No. What we can detect is a measurement of gravitational forces; and that it doesn't match up to what is predicted by Newton-Einstein theories.

There are two ways to go - our understanding of gravity is complete so there must be some kind of invisible mass somewhere; or our theory of gravity needs further work.

Dark matter is a theory to explain the discrepancy. You can't go back around and say the discrepancy proves dark matter.

>>1435471
OP is wrong, we are not pretty sure. Its purely theoretical at best. If we discovered it to be existing, shitstorm would ensue.
ALSO circles

>>1436756
o I meant we detect a gravational force, it could be dark matter, but all we know for sure is there is a gravational force.
Granted we don't understand gravity very well, but we have to use the best current model.

>>1436156
"Could this somehow be the dark energy that is causing the expansion?"

Lookup "Cosmological constant"
(If TLDR, the answer is yes.)

"there has been a fuck ton of energy to go missing this way since the beginning of the universe"

Not only did the Universe expand to an extremely fast rate, but you have to know that in the first 3 minutes of the Universe, energy was so condensed that it turned into matter/antimatter. (1 million and 1 atoms of matter per million of antimatter (and yes..that's why the Universe is filled with matter))

>>1436779
We have to use the current model until we come up with a better one - one alternative is inventing dark matter to make it fit, another is to modify our gravity theories.

Here's a short blurb about MOG:
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/11/mog-trumps-dark-matter.html

Biggest problem with dark matter is that there have been observed galaxy collisions where the observations do not match what the theory predicts. In one case, dark matter would have to mass near the center to cause what was observed. In another, dark matter would have to spread out along the outside of the area. The actual examples were in a book on gravity theory I was reading, so you would have to look them up, but dark matter is still very theoretical.