A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

Date: 22 Aug 2006 00:17:33
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com >
wrote:

>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.

What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 22 Aug 2006 02:22:26
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Date: 22 Aug 2006 00:25:44
From: London England
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
> here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
> definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>
> What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
> that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
>

Like I said...Hogwash! And it takes an IDIOT to believe a first hand
"report".

Date: 22 Aug 2006 01:15:06
From: euclides romanus
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Yours is a very funny post. Just hilarious! I hope by the time I send this
the early
morning smog will have started to burn off and you will rethink your
position,
but you position is well understood (in the Olde World).
Im still laughing and may all day -
jw

London England wrote:

> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> >> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
> >
> > That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
> > here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
> > definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
> >
> > What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
> > that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
> >
>
> Like I said...Hogwash! And it takes an IDIOT to believe a first hand
> "report".

Date: 22 Aug 2006 00:22:11
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com >, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>
>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
>
Yes, yes, exactly.

Mati Meron

Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:29:21
From: Bruce Scott TOK
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Mati M wrote:

>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>
>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.

>Yes, yes, exactly.

First of the Google Sponsored Links:

Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How in
"The God Hypothesis"

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

Date: 22 Aug 2006 15:28:39
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de >, Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>Mati M wrote:
>
>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>>
>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
>
>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>
>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>
>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How in
>"The God Hypothesis"
>
Uggh <shudder >

Mati Meron

Date: 23 Aug 09:32:18
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu >,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] > writes:
>>Mati M wrote:
>>
>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>
>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>>>
>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
>>
>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>
>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>
>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How in
>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>
>Uggh <shudder>

I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.

/BAH

Date: 23 Aug 2006 13:36:50
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com >, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>Mati M wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>
>>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
>>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
>>>
>>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>
>>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>
>>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How in
>>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>
>>Uggh <shudder>
>
>I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>
That's the least of my worries, at present.

Mati Meron

Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:19:53
From: operator jay
Subject: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu > wrote in message
news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
> >>>Mati M wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
> >>>
> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect
the
> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
said.
> >>>
> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
> >>>
> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
> >>>
> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How
in
> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
> >>>
> >>Uggh <shudder>
> >
> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
> >
> That's the least of my worries, at present.

What would be at the top of the list?

Date: 24 Aug 2006 04:11:02
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga >, "operator jay" <none@none.none> writes:
>
><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>> >>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>> >>>
>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect
>the
>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>said.
>> >>>
>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>> >>>
>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>> >>>
>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How
>in
>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>> >>>
>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>> >
>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>> >
>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>
>What would be at the top of the list?
>
WWIII

Mati Meron

Date: 24 Aug 09:13:56
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <qF9Hg.27$25.114@news.uchicago.edu >,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga>, "operator jay"
<none@none.none > writes:
>>
>><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect
>>the
>>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>>said.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How
>>in
>>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>> >>>
>>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>>> >
>>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>> >
>>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>>
>>What would be at the top of the list?
>>
>WWIII

One follows the other...at my current level of knowledge.

/BAH

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:18:43
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <ecjqkk$8qk_002@s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com >, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <qF9Hg.27$25.114@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga>, "operator jay"
><none@none.none> writes:
>>>
>>><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>>>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect
>>>the
>>>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>>>said.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How
>>>in
>>>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>>>> >
>>>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>>> >
>>>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>>>
>>>What would be at the top of the list?
>>>
>>WWIII
>
>One follows the other...at my current level of knowledge.
>
No, not necessarily at all. There is some correlation, but far from
causation.

Mati Meron

Date: 26 Aug 10:00:40
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <TblHg.28$25.71@news.uchicago.edu >,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <ecjqkk$8qk_002@s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>In article <qF9Hg.27$25.114@news.uchicago.edu>,
>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga>, "operator jay"
>><none@none.none> writes:
>>>>
>>>><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>>>>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no
proof
>>>>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect
>>>>the
>>>>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the
fringe.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong
evidence
>>>>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>>>>said.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How
>>>>in
>>>>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>>>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>>>> >
>>>>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>>>>
>>>>What would be at the top of the list?
>>>>
>>>WWIII
>>
>>One follows the other...at my current level of knowledge.
>>
>No, not necessarily at all. There is some correlation, but far from
>causation.

No,no. One of these days I'm going to learn how to write clearly...

I use it as an indicator. For instance, if you hear a sound
like a locomotive, it may be the #214 coal train or it could
also be a tornado. The sound is an indicator that a mess may be
about to happen but isn't the cause of the mess making.
I figured it would take about 5-10 years to have a certain
mindset changed without outright war. I don't think there's
time left.

/BAH

Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:48:54
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <ecp648$8ss_003@s822.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com >, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <TblHg.28$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <ecjqkk$8qk_002@s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>In article <qF9Hg.27$25.114@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga>, "operator jay"
>>><none@none.none> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>>>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>>>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>>>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>>>>>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>>>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>>>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no
>proof
>>>>>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect
>>>>>the
>>>>>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the
>fringe.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong
>evidence
>>>>>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>>>>>said.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How
>>>>>in
>>>>>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>>>>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>>>>>
>>>>>What would be at the top of the list?
>>>>>
>>>>WWIII
>>>
>>>One follows the other...at my current level of knowledge.
>>>
>>No, not necessarily at all. There is some correlation, but far from
>>causation.
>
>No,no. One of these days I'm going to learn how to write clearly...
>
>I use it as an indicator. For instance, if you hear a sound
>like a locomotive, it may be the #214 coal train or it could
>also be a tornado. The sound is an indicator that a mess may be
>about to happen but isn't the cause of the mess making.

Not just "isn't the cause" but, by itself, it is just a "may be"
indicator (as you say). Not very certain, by itself, without
additional observations.

>I figured it would take about 5-10 years to have a certain
>mindset changed without outright war. I don't think there's
>time left.
>
Yse, that's the problem. The situation is urgent but most people will
rather not see it.

Mati Meron

Date: 27 Aug 11:31:41
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <GA1Ig.31$25.128@news.uchicago.edu >,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <ecp648$8ss_003@s822.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>In article <TblHg.28$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>In article <ecjqkk$8qk_002@s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>>In article <qF9Hg.27$25.114@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>>In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga>, "operator jay"
>>>><none@none.none> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>>>>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>>>>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>>>>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>>>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>>>>>>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>>>>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>>>>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com >
>>>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no
>>proof
>>>>>>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would
respect
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the
>>fringe.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong
>>evidence
>>>>>>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>>>>>>said.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read
How
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>>>>>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would be at the top of the list?
>>>>>>
>>>>>WWIII
>>>>
>>>>One follows the other...at my current level of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>No, not necessarily at all. There is some correlation, but far from
>>>causation.
>>
>>No,no. One of these days I'm going to learn how to write clearly...
>>
>>I use it as an indicator. For instance, if you hear a sound
>>like a locomotive, it may be the #214 coal train or it could
>>also be a tornado. The sound is an indicator that a mess may be
>>about to happen but isn't the cause of the mess making.
>
>Not just "isn't the cause" but, by itself, it is just a "may be"
>indicator (as you say). Not very certain, by itself, without
>additional observations.

Correct. Those additional observastions already exist. This
addition caused me to worry some more.

>
>>I figured it would take about 5-10 years to have a certain
>>mindset changed without outright war. I don't think there's
>>time left.
>>
>Yse, that's the problem. The situation is urgent but most people will
>rather not see it.

I've been working on this one.

/BAH

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:59:18
From:
Subject: Re: OT: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <ecrvqt$8qk_008@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com >, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <GA1Ig.31$25.128@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <ecp648$8ss_003@s822.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>In article <TblHg.28$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>In article <ecjqkk$8qk_002@s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>>>In article <qF9Hg.27$25.114@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>>>In article <vc9Hg.4844$bW3.3830@newsfe19.lga>, "operator jay"
>>>>><none@none.none> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>>>>>> In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>>>>>> >In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>>>>>>> > mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>>>>>>>> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>>>>>> >>>Mati M wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>>>>>> >>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley
><swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no
>>>proof
>>>>>>>> >>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would
>respect
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>> >>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the
>>>fringe.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong
>>>evidence
>>>>>>>> >>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have
>>>>>>>said.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read
>How
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>> >>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>Uggh <shudder>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>>>>>>> >is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> That's the least of my worries, at present.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What would be at the top of the list?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>WWIII
>>>>>
>>>>>One follows the other...at my current level of knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>No, not necessarily at all. There is some correlation, but far from
>>>>causation.
>>>
>>>No,no. One of these days I'm going to learn how to write clearly...
>>>
>>>I use it as an indicator. For instance, if you hear a sound
>>>like a locomotive, it may be the #214 coal train or it could
>>>also be a tornado. The sound is an indicator that a mess may be
>>>about to happen but isn't the cause of the mess making.
>>
>>Not just "isn't the cause" but, by itself, it is just a "may be"
>>indicator (as you say). Not very certain, by itself, without
>>additional observations.
>
>Correct. Those additional observastions already exist. This
>addition caused me to worry some more.

That's where you've to be careful about expressing yourself clearly.
By itself, "wrapping bits in religion" means nothing. There were
plenty of great wars not correlated with any religion, as well as
religion revivals not correlated with any wars. The mess we've on our
hands now is stemming from ideas that followers of one speciic
religion got in their heads, not from religious feelings in general.
>
>>
>>>I figured it would take about 5-10 years to have a certain
>>>mindset changed without outright war. I don't think there's
>>>time left.
>>>
>>Yse, that's the problem. The situation is urgent but most people will
>>rather not see it.
>
>I've been working on this one.
>
Yes, I know.

Mati Meron

Date: 24 Aug 09:12:17
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In article <SRYGg.22$25.177@news.uchicago.edu >,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <ech7b2$8ss_001@s905.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>In article <HoFGg.18$25.99@news.uchicago.edu>,
>> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>In article <200608221129.k7MBTL9B001012@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
>><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>>Mati M wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <c4jke2pqcv8on9un481d0k89a5iikea0fg@4ax.com>, Chris L
>>>>>Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>>>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>>>
>>>>>>That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
>>>>>>here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
>>>>>>definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
>>>>>>that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, yes, exactly.
>>>>
>>>>First of the Google Sponsored Links:
>>>>
>>>>Modern Science Finds God - Cosmologists Discover the Creator Read How in
>>>>"The God Hypothesis"
>>>>
>>>Uggh <shudder>
>>
>>I've been noticing that the incidence of wrapping bits in religion
>>is increasing by leaps and bounds. I'm worried.
>>
>That's the least of my worries, at present.

I understand.

/BAH

Date: 22 Aug 2006 09:19:11
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
> here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
> definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.

I agree very much. But... looking at the test of the story, the term
"proof" appears in a quote from one of the astronomers who was
interviewed. So we can't really blame the press for this one.

I swear, scientists sometimes go insane when trying to translate from
"scientific" to "every day."

For instance, the common mis-use of the word theory is often employed by
some scientists when talking to the media. How unhelpful.

And then there's the intentionally misleading term "evolution" rather
than something more specific and scientific.

But I think my favorite example was in Sky & Telescope a year or so ago:

In the ober issue of Sky & Telescope the editor complained that, "An
acquaintance recently asked me if I believe in the Big Bang. What a
misguided question! It implies that astronomers 'believe' in the tenets
of science the way children believe in the Easter Bunny."

So far so good. An editor who gets science.

Yet, in the very article pointed to by Mr. Fienberg in his editorial we
find this: (box caption on page 34): "... and if dark energy 'outweighs'
dark matter by more than 2 to 1, as currently believed...".

Oops.

I'm so tired of reading about what scientists "believe." I used to
blame the popular media, but to tell you the truth I think the root of
this problem is in the often careless way astronomers and physicists
express themselves publicly. It's time we all made an effort to be less
sloppy in our choice of words.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 22 Aug 2006 09:41:16
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Yet, in the very article pointed to by Mr. Fienberg in his editorial we
> find this: (box caption on page 34): "... and if dark energy 'outweighs'
> dark matter by more than 2 to 1, as currently believed...".
>
> Oops.

Yeah, although I didn't find that so bad. I think there's a difference
(of some import) between believing something and believing *in*
something. By the former, we merely assert that we think something is
true; by the latter, we connote faith in something. Literally, the
difference isn't that large, but the nuances are there, I think. (Or
believe. <g >)

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 22 Aug 2006 12:03:25
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Brian Tung wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> Yet, in the very article pointed to by Mr. Fienberg in his editorial we
>> find this: (box caption on page 34): "... and if dark energy 'outweighs'
>> dark matter by more than 2 to 1, as currently believed...".
>>
>> Oops.
>
> Yeah, although I didn't find that so bad. I think there's a difference
> (of some import) between believing something and believing *in*
> something. By the former, we merely assert that we think something is
> true; by the latter, we connote faith in something. Literally, the
> difference isn't that large, but the nuances are there, I think. (Or
> believe. <g>)

I don't disagree, but I'm rather surprised that both you and Chris seem
to have completely missed the point. Shades of gray about the word
"believe" aside, it is NOT a good synonym for "the current evidence
indicates" which is how "scientists believe" is used in the press.

How can we expect the general public to understand that what we really
mean by "scientists believe" is "the current evidence indicates" if we
use such vague language? Surely the two of you agree that the word
"believe" can be easily mistaken for something that is not based on a
rational view of the world. Remember, people model others on
themselves; unless we state clearly that science is based on evidence
rather than "beliefs" those with irrational tendencies will read it as
just another opinion.

I'm simply saying that if we mean, "the evidence indicates" that is what
we should say, and leave this terrible word "believe" out of it entirely.

Clear skies,
Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:17:35
From: London England
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:4d9c1$44eb46d9$4212a5f6$14701@TULAROSA.NET...
> Brian Tung wrote:
>> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>>> Yet, in the very article pointed to by Mr. Fienberg in his editorial we
>>> find this: (box caption on page 34): "... and if dark energy 'outweighs'
>>> dark matter by more than 2 to 1, as currently believed...".
>>>
>>> Oops.
>>
>> Yeah, although I didn't find that so bad. I think there's a difference
>> (of some import) between believing something and believing *in*
>> something. By the former, we merely assert that we think something is
>> true; by the latter, we connote faith in something. Literally, the
>> difference isn't that large, but the nuances are there, I think. (Or
>> believe. <g>)
>
> I don't disagree, but I'm rather surprised that both you and Chris seem to
> have completely missed the point. Shades of gray about the word "believe"
> aside, it is NOT a good synonym for "the current evidence indicates" which
> is how "scientists believe" is used in the press.
>
> How can we expect the general public to understand that what we really
> mean by "scientists believe" is "the current evidence indicates" if we use
> such vague language? Surely the two of you agree that the word "believe"
> can be easily mistaken for something that is not based on a rational view
> of the world. Remember, people model others on themselves; unless we
> state clearly that science is based on evidence rather than "beliefs"
> those with irrational tendencies will read it as just another opinion.
>
> I'm simply saying that if we mean, "the evidence indicates" that is what
> we should say, and leave this terrible word "believe" out of it entirely.
>
> Clear skies,
> Greg

Ok, the writer shouldn't be science writer but is. Probably 80% of the
workforce is polluted with
people doing things they shouldn't be doing.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 11:22:17
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> I don't disagree, but I'm rather surprised that both you and Chris seem
> to have completely missed the point. Shades of gray about the word
> "believe" aside, it is NOT a good synonym for "the current evidence
> indicates" which is how "scientists believe" is used in the press.

I don't think I missed it so much as I disagree. :) I think it is a
reasonable synonym--or, at least, as reasonable as can be expected,
given that most people don't have a good understanding of how evidence
works in a scientific context. The few people who do would have no
trouble extrapolating "the current evidence indicates" from "scientists
believe."

The proper solution, of course, is better education about how evidence
works in science, and I have a long-standing prejudice in favor of
educating by educating. I do like your wording better, because it's
more precise, but I guess I don't agree that it's the principal barrier
to a proper understanding of what's going on.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:51:35
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Hi Brian,

Brian Tung wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> I don't disagree, but I'm rather surprised that both you and Chris seem
>> to have completely missed the point. Shades of gray about the word
>> "believe" aside, it is NOT a good synonym for "the current evidence
>> indicates" which is how "scientists believe" is used in the press.
>
> I don't think I missed it so much as I disagree. :) I think it is a
> reasonable synonym--or, at least, as reasonable as can be expected,
> given that most people don't have a good understanding of how evidence
> works in a scientific context. The few people who do would have no
> trouble extrapolating "the current evidence indicates" from "scientists
> believe."

What is funny is that I don't think we disagree at all!

> The proper solution, of course, is better education about how evidence
> works in science, and I have a long-standing prejudice in favor of
> educating by educating. I do like your wording better, because it's
> more precise, but I guess I don't agree that it's the principal barrier
> to a proper understanding of what's going on.

Of course. I didn't mean to suggest it is a "principle barrier to
proper understanding." My point, which I apparently stated very
ineloquently, for which I apologize, is this: we often criticize the
general popular media for the way they portray science, but what I have
noted is that we scientists are often very much at fault ourselves,
particularly in the way we sometimes choose to phrase things.

After all, this thread was about the word "proof" in the article. I
pointed out that rather than poor reporting, "proof" came from the quote
attributed to a scientist.

I've noticed this same thing in numerous other articles. It's sort of
disappointing to discover that the poor choice of words found in the
headline or hyperbolic first paragraph actually came from a quote made
by someone who should have known better.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:40:54
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> What is funny is that I don't think we disagree at all!

I stand corrected. :)

I think it may be that this "mistranslation" between scientific prose
and ordinary prose happens because the two are so different. If you ask
educated lay readers to choose which text is more difficult to read--
a music history journal article on Bizet, say, or an astrophysics
journal article on general relativity, I think that just about every
time, they'll say the GR article is harder to read. And in my opinion,
it's not because the GR article writers are more intelligent--at least,
I don't think it's *just* about that--it's because the prose is so
different from ordinary English as to all but unintelligible.

The relevance to this thread is that as scientists, we keep such a
divide between the two--discussing science in scientific prose and
today's dinner choices in regular English--that when it comes to making
science accessible to the educated lay audience, we translate poorly
because, in my opinion, we're so unaccustomed to doing it.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 23 Aug 2006 14:01:27
From: Fireballs
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:e501b$44eb6045$4212a5f6$1492@TULAROSA.NET...
> Hi Brian,
>
> Brian Tung wrote:
>> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>>> I don't disagree, but I'm rather surprised that both you and Chris seem
>>> to have completely missed the point. Shades of gray about the word
>>> "believe" aside, it is NOT a good synonym for "the current evidence
>>> indicates" which is how "scientists believe" is used in the press.
>>
>> I don't think I missed it so much as I disagree. :) I think it is a
>> reasonable synonym--or, at least, as reasonable as can be expected,
>> given that most people don't have a good understanding of how evidence
>> works in a scientific context. The few people who do would have no
>> trouble extrapolating "the current evidence indicates" from "scientists
>> believe."

Well, you're not scientists in the real sense anyway, so why are you even
bothering with this?

Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Fireballs wrote:
> Well, you're not scientists in the real sense anyway, so why are you even
> bothering with this?

Anonymous trolling. How grown up.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 23 Aug 2006 15:43:51
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Anonymous trolling. How grown up.

Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 23 Aug 2006 16:29:45
From: Fireballs
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:8stoe2tqm3lfnkkpca9i3epjpl8rrlqclp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Anonymous trolling. How grown up.
>
> Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.
>
> _________________________________________________
>

Truth has a way of being insulting don't it??

Date: 23 Aug 2006 12:06:48
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Date: 23 Aug 2006 19:18:57
From: Fireballs
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:d7908$44ec9932$4212a5f6$15593@TULAROSA.NET...
> Fireballs wrote:
>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:8stoe2tqm3lfnkkpca9i3epjpl8rrlqclp@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
>>> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anonymous trolling. How grown up.
>>> Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> Truth has a way of being insulting don't it??
>
> Well, I'm sorry if you were insulted. :-)
>

You calling yourself a scientist, boy? heh? That IS arrogant.

Date: 23 Aug 2006 14:42:43
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Fireballs wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d7908$44ec9932$4212a5f6$15593@TULAROSA.NET...
>> Fireballs wrote:
>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:8stoe2tqm3lfnkkpca9i3epjpl8rrlqclp@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
>>>> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anonymous trolling. How grown up.
>>>> Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>
>>> Truth has a way of being insulting don't it??
>> Well, I'm sorry if you were insulted. :-)
>>
>
> You calling yourself a scientist, boy? heh? That IS arrogant.

Why don't you explain exactly how I'm not a "real" scientist?

That ought to be worth a hoot Mr. anonymous gasbag. Oh, and while we
are at it, why don't to reveal who you are?

Or are you too much of a childish coward?

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 23 Aug 2006 21:41:41
From: Fireballs
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:b8ba9$44ecbdbd$4212a5f6$6717@TULAROSA.NET...
> Fireballs wrote:
>> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:d7908$44ec9932$4212a5f6$15593@TULAROSA.NET...
>>> Fireballs wrote:
>>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:8stoe2tqm3lfnkkpca9i3epjpl8rrlqclp@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
>>>>> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anonymous trolling. How grown up.
>>>>> Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>> Truth has a way of being insulting don't it??
>>> Well, I'm sorry if you were insulted. :-)
>>>
>>
>> You calling yourself a scientist, boy? heh? That IS arrogant.
>
> Why don't you explain exactly how I'm not a "real" scientist?
>

you didn't answer the question...are you calling yourself a real scientist?

Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:31:54
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Fireballs wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b8ba9$44ecbdbd$4212a5f6$6717@TULAROSA.NET...
>> Fireballs wrote:
>>> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d7908$44ec9932$4212a5f6$15593@TULAROSA.NET...
>>>> Fireballs wrote:
>>>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8stoe2tqm3lfnkkpca9i3epjpl8rrlqclp@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
>>>>>> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anonymous trolling. How grown up.
>>>>>> Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>> Truth has a way of being insulting don't it??
>>>> Well, I'm sorry if you were insulted. :-)
>>>>
>>> You calling yourself a scientist, boy? heh? That IS arrogant.
>> Why don't you explain exactly how I'm not a "real" scientist?
>>
>
> you didn't answer the question...are you calling yourself a real scientist?

Is that really the best response you could come up with? I mean,
really, Tommy Lee (or whomever you are). How pathetic. I was hoping
for something more entertaining. Oh well, PLONK then.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:48:19
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

>>
>> you didn't answer the question...are you calling yourself a real
>> scientist?
>
> Is that really the best response you could come up with? I mean, really,
> Tommy Lee (or whomever you are). How pathetic. I was hoping for
> something more entertaining. Oh well, PLONK then.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

Software developer sounds more like a retailer with a fat head!

Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:19:42
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Tommy Lee wrote:
>>> you didn't answer the question...are you calling yourself a real
>>> scientist?
>> Is that really the best response you could come up with? I mean, really,
>> Tommy Lee (or whomever you are). How pathetic. I was hoping for
>> something more entertaining. Oh well, PLONK then.
>>
>> --
>> Greg Crinklaw
>> Astronomical Software Developer
>> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>>
>> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
>> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
>> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>>
>> To reply take out your eye
>
>
> Software developer sounds more like a retailer with a fat head!

I'm sorry? Please say that again. Your voice was muffled because your
head's so far up your ass. :-)

As usual "Tommy", you are way out of your league both scientifically and
socially. Those un-taken meds on the shelf are calling you. Please
heed their call.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:35:07
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

> I'm sorry? Please say that again. Your voice was muffled because your
> head's so far up your ass. :-)
>
> As usual "Tommy", you are way out of your league both scientifically and
> socially. Those un-taken meds on the shelf are calling you. Please heed
> their call.

ah! you're speaking from experience!

Date: 23 Aug 2006 14:48:48
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:01:27 GMT, "Fireballs" <nuspam@tv.net > wrote:

>Well, you're not scientists in the real sense anyway, so why are you even
>bothering with this?

And you are?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:37:19
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:19:11 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Yet, in the very article pointed to by Mr. Fienberg in his editorial we
>find this: (box caption on page 34): "... and if dark energy 'outweighs'
>dark matter by more than 2 to 1, as currently believed...".
>
>Oops.
>
>I'm so tired of reading about what scientists "believe."

I don't see the problem here. That is a different use of "believe": a
tenet or body of tenets held by a group. (Tenet: a principle generally
held to be true.)

"As currently believed" just means that this opinion is mainstream, and
represents the views of most scientists.

I would have no problem if somebody asked me if I believe a theory is
accurate.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 22 Aug 2006 08:28:18
From: Andy Resnick
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:28:31 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
>
> That is truly a regrettable headline, since clearly there is no proof
> here (nor can there be). I wish these science writers would respect the
> definition of "science"; headlines like this just empower the fringe.
>
> What the paper being reported on does is provide very strong evidence
> that dark matter is real, and that's what this author should have said.

Well, the title of the paper is:

'A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter'

so I wouldn't be quick to blame a science writer. I haven't been able
to get a copy of the actual paper yet, tho.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:15:27
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:28:18 -0400, Andy Resnick
<andy.resnick@op.case.edu > wrote:

>Well, the title of the paper is:
>
>'A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter'
>
>so I wouldn't be quick to blame a science writer. I haven't been able
>to get a copy of the actual paper yet, tho.

Well, then I'll blame both the original authors and the science writer.
A science writer should know better, too. Of course, the problem here is
with the headline, not the article itself; often the writer has no
control over the headline (and the writer of that may be clueless).
Still, the original writer should at least try to educate his editors.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 21 Aug 2006 14:26:51
From: robin_astro
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Sam Wormley wrote:
> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

I love the Google sponsored link on that page

"Dark Matter - Buy Dark Matter with free delivery over =A320 at Tesco."

It must be real if Tesco stock it ;-)))

Robin

Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:06:35
From: hanson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:jXmGg.146092$1i1.73595@attbi_s72...
>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
[hanson]
Sam, you are an alright-guy, especially for posting the
many science-news things, including the gem above.

..... ahahahhaha.... a gem, because NASA asserts
that from 2 tiny, tiny differently colored pixel spots on
one of their telescopes- >computer generated images,
from an event that captured a static situation of eons ago
they have "scientifically" concluded that the today's
basic distillates of physics knowledge are wrong...
HEAVY!... ahahahaha... ahahahahaha...

Theses astrophysicists are beginning to live in cloud 9
and have begun to use, relate and promote the same
tactics which paleo/archeo-anthropologists employ
after/when they find a tiny piece of fossilized bone, then
telling us & swearing by, in cold blood, enthusiastically
that the bone was from a 8 year old girl who died on
Tuesday, 12th Feb in the year 3'024'659 BC, because
of a fatal hemorrhage that was perpetrated onto her head
(still missing) by the clan's shaman who hallucinated since
he ate too many mushrooms resulting in his assault on
her and was not stopped nor prevented by her grandmother
who was sitting 3.785 yards away, not paying any attention
but chewing on mastodon jerky, while observing the union
negations of tribe's child-protective services who were on strike...

Caveat: Such types of reports are great, lovable stories and
keen phantasms, in contrast to the ever-depressing news
of the day. Carry on, Sam... ahahaha... Thanks again, Sam!
ahahaha... ahahanson

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:26:50
From: Math Freak
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:06:35 GMT, hanson wrote:

> the same
> tactics which paleo/archeo-anthropologists employ
> after/when they find a tiny piece of fossilized bone, then
> telling us & swearing by, in cold blood, enthusiastically
> that the bone was from a 8 year old girl who died on
> Tuesday, 12th Feb in the year 3'024'659 BC, because
> of a fatal hemorrhage that was perpetrated onto her head
> (still missing) by the clan's shaman who hallucinated since
> he ate too many mushrooms resulting in his assault on
> her and was not stopped nor prevented by her grandmother
> who was sitting 3.785 yards away, not paying any attention
> but chewing on mastodon jerky, while observing the union
> negations of tribe's child-protective services who were on strike...

Hehe :) And this is one side of the picture/coin. The
other side is that the same Western researchers miss
the most obvious truth behind most ordinary items they
find in their diggings. This is a Westerner's malady
Hassan. Admit it. You included.

--

"peydA kardane ellate divAnegiye ashkhAs kAre AsAni
nist."

- Bozorg Alavi

Date: 22 Aug 2006 03:31:00
From: hanson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Mehram Maleki aka "Math Freak" <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com >
w/i news:18ylc11mu3pbk.i75powwwrqug$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
[hanson]
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:06:35 GMT, hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8fae021538fc734
>> astrophysicists are beginning to use the same
>> tactics which paleo/archeo-anthropologists employ
>> after/when they find a tiny piece of fossilized bone, then
>> telling us & swearing by, in cold blood, enthusiastically
>> that the bone was from a 8 year old girl who died on
>> Tuesday, 12th Feb in the year 3'024'659 BC, because
>> of a fatal hemorrhage that was perpetrated onto her head
>> (still missing) by the clan's shaman who hallucinated since
>> he ate too many mushrooms resulting in his assault on
>> her and was not stopped nor prevented by her grandmother
>> who was sitting 3.785 yards away, not paying any attention
>> but chewing on mastodon jerky, while observing the union
>> negations of tribe's child-protective services who were on strike...
>
[Mehram]
> Hehe :) And this is one side of the picture/coin. The
> other side is that the same Western researchers miss
> the most obvious truth behind most ordinary items they
> find in their diggings. This is a Westerner's malady [1]
> Hassan. Admit it. You included.
>
[hanson]
WOW..., How stupid can you get, Mehram? When Hassan's
agents of the Hezbollahalalalala hear your denigrations and
blasphemy against their hero Hassan, they will come looking
for you and make you take your last warm shit, dude.
Don't be so careless, Mehram. These are not normal times we
live in these days. You better start looking to the source of all
evil: Jerusalem. Now, Mehram, where does your Johnny-come-
lately-Bible, the Koran, say that you have to become even more
fucked up and more evil then they are?.... ahahahaha....
>
[Mehram]
> "peydA kardane ellate divAnegiye ashkhAs kAre AsAni
> nist." - Bozorg Alavi [2]
>
[hanson]
Mehram, you are really into Islamic porn above, [2] disguising it
under the cloak of religion. This is an Islamic malady in contrast
[1]... ahahaha... Me not missing ordinary items such a your [2]
shall give you the proper spelling, for the whole world to see.
It says:
"Mehram's paid a hardon fellate divine negative ash as kack
anilingiust to Bozo's organ, lavishly"... WOW, ain't you a little
old man-whore, Mehram... Do you do this for lust or money?
Thanks for the laughs, old fart,.... ahahaha...
ahahaha...ahahanson

Date: 22 Aug 2006 11:10:25
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:31:00 GMT) it happened "hanson"
<hanson@quick.net > wrote in <UTuGg.21121$u1.20747@trnddc05>:

>agents of the Hezbollahalalalala

I think he was right, and merely pointed out the obvious that escapes
attention:
Civilisations come, and civilisations go.
And _usually_ after some rather aggressive ruler...

For example after Caesar the Roman empire started to decline and lose
power.

After GW Bush the Conquerer ......
Wether he starts globular nuclear war or not.

In 3535 will be digged up: "Was an important person at that time'.
'He could not possibly have been _that_ stupid.' (playing back his
speeches).

Now your Hezbollahaha song....

Was it US action to damage that to make Israel free to attack Iran?

Did it fail or did it work?
I do not get the way wars are done these days, I for sure, if in command
of Hezllala would have filled every rocket with gas.
Inflict maximum damage.
US resolutions? Geneva? Israel should leave Palestine by US resolution nr
<something >.
US murdered directly or indirectly 100000 civilians in Iraq.

You actually went to fight for GW Bush? And got wounded in the process,
and are _proud_ of that? You are sick.

OK.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 15:44:09
From: hanson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA....
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com > cranked himself
grievously on a "On a sunny day" (Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:31:00
GMT) when it happened that "hanson" > <hanson@quick.net>
wrote in <UTuGg.21121$u1.20747@trnddc05 wrote in message
news:eceon6$7na$1@news.datemas.de...
>
[hanson to Freak Maleki]
>>agents of the Hezbollahalalalala
>
[Pante's premature ejaculation onto future history]]
> I think he was right, and merely pointed out the obvious that
> escapes attention:
> Civilisations come, and civilisations go.
> And _usually_ after some rather aggressive ruler...
> For example after Caesar the Roman empire started to
> decline and lose power.
> After GW Bush the Conquerer ......
> Wether he starts globular nuclear war or not.
> In 3535 will be digged up: "Was an important person at that time'.
> 'He could not possibly have been _that_ stupid.' (playing back his
> speeches).
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha... Bush's approval rating is currently running around
30-40% which may give you a hint. Also, we are fully aware of
your collective/national fears and also know about YOUR country's
recent policy changes to curtail the Muslim influence. So, Pante,
don't be so sanctimoniously phony... for you, collectively, might be
one of the1st ones to have the fate of becoming a flying Dutchman.
>
[Pante, the arm chair War lord]
> Now your Hezbollahaha song....
> Was it US action to damage that to make Israel free to attack Iran?
> Did it fail or did it work?
> I do not get the way wars are done these days, I for sure, if in
> command of Hezllala would have filled every rocket with gas.
> Inflict maximum damage. [1]
> US resolutions? Geneva? Israel should leave Palestine by
> US resolution nr <something>.
> US murdered directly or indirectly 100000 civilians in Iraq.
>
[hanson]
I don't know what is being played behind the scenes in the
Pentagon and the Admin with the Jews (called Neocons)
that have influence there. -- Not that I particularity care, but
it may help you to allay your fears and phantasms about me
if you google/groups --[ author: hanson@quick.net Wolfowitz]--
Too boot, I have a reoccurring post running right now with
another barking ashkeNazi, where the question is raised
in: Re: Globalist-Zionist Mafia To Do Another 9/11:... me asking:

"...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax money each
year for the last 60 years, and an equal $$ amount to the ass-venters
to placate and pacify them so that they don't continue to kick Jew ass,
begs the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars buying
the American public, besides continuous terrorism, mayhem and war
where Jews being connected to or are involved in ? --- What good or
benefit has come in return to the American taxpayers from Israel for
all that tax money that came off the tables from poor American families?"

Pante, if you think that I am the only one asking this here in the US,
then you are a truly fanatical Hezbollalalaler... or being married to one..
ahahaha..
>
[Pante's ill wishes]
> You actually went to fight for GW Bush? And got wounded in
> the process, and are _proud_ of that? You are sick.
> OK.
>
[hanson]
Now, what gave you YOUR sick idea? ... ahahahaha... I posted
many times that "hanson travels alone".... Pante, have you been
drinking or doping to excess again?... Don't do that in your
geriatric cum Alzheimer-on-setting condition... ahahaha...

AFAIAC my beef is that this Bush war has not been conducted
in fashion of the WWII style. You, of all people should know this
instead of you complaining about "100000 civilians in Iraq".

If you go to war you don't wanna "win hearts and minds" like
the idiots do now. If you go to war you kill so many of them
that the surviving ones come and beg you to spare their
"hearts and minds". If worked for Japan and Nazi Germany
beautifully and for their own good... with you Netherlanders
having being the beneficiaries thereof... You are an ingrate,
Pante. You would do far more good if you (collectively) would
help us Amis in order for you to avoid that your grandkids will
not be forced to do 5 daily ass-venting exercises facing Mecca.

Pante, I hope, for your benefit, that you will not crank yourself
over this post... and for god's sake don't post when you are
pre-conditioned by your bong.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs. Pante.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson

Date: 22 Aug 2006 17:02:36
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:44:09 GMT) it happened "hanson"
<hanson@quick.net > wrote in <dDFGg.4369$E_.3213@trnddc06>:

>ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA....

>[hanson to Freak Maleki]
>>>agents of the Hezbollahalalalala

>> I think he was right, and merely pointed out the obvious that
>> escapes attention:
>> Civilisations come, and civilisations go.
>> And _usually_ after some rather aggressive ruler...
>> For example after Caesar the Roman empire started to
>> decline and lose power.
>> After GW Bush the Conquerer ......
>> Wether he starts globular nuclear war or not.
>> In 3535 will be digged up: "Was an important person at that time'.
>> 'He could not possibly have been _that_ stupid.' (playing back his
>> speeches).
>>
>[hanson]
>... ahahaha... Bush's approval rating is currently running around
>30-40% which may give you a hint.

Yes, still dummies who fall for him :-)

>Also, we are fully aware of
>your collective/national fears and also know about YOUR country's
>recent policy changes to curtail the Muslim influence. So, Pante,
>don't be so sanctimoniously phony... for you, collectively, might be
>one of the1st ones to have the fate of becoming a flying Dutchman.

Is that a threat? Well, the Netherlands will likely stay devoted
to GWBush alias 'the oilman', because the price we get for the natural gas
we pump from the ground and sell to other countries is coupled to the
oil price,.
It (Bushman) makes this country rich.
Same for UK (North Sea oil), Russia (their oil), Saudia Arabia (Bush
employers), and some other smaller oil pumping countries.
It worked less well in South America....

But those are GWBushman's _only_ allies.... I am sure if he was impeached
we would still be friends with the US. I had never a problem with Clinton.
But I do not even recognise GWBush the horrible as US president.
And, as you pointed out, neither do most Americans.

As nobody wants to send troops to play an other game in Libanon as US
played in the Balkan, chances are that even if Bushist is impeached
normalisation of public opinion in Europe (yes you have to ultimately
deal with the EU, and that includes such powers as France, Italy, and
Germany) will take a long long time.
Even the idea that an other republican term could happen ... We all
remember Vietnam too.
Your country is _weapon manufacturer number one_ and will start wars
everywhere just to have sales going, you treat the people as cannon meat.
_You_.
Nothing wrong with Dutch cheese.

>[hanson]
>I don't know what is being played behind the scenes in the
>Pentagon and the Admin with the Jews (called Neocons)
>that have influence there. -- Not that I particularity care, but
>it may help you to allay your fears and phantasms about me
>if you google/groups --[ author: hanson@quick.net Wolfowitz]--
>Too boot, I have a reoccurring post running right now with
>another barking ashkeNazi, where the question is raised
>in: Re: Globalist-Zionist Mafia To Do Another 9/11:... me asking:

Oh well, so you are maybe a bit more awake then it thought, fine.
I started reading us.politics some time ago.

>==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars buying
>the American public, besides continuous terrorism, mayhem and war
>where Jews being connected to or are involved in ?

Jobs in weapon factories, MS windows, arms, the only US export products.
:-)

>benefit has come in return to the American taxpayers from Israel for
>all that tax money that came off the tables from poor American families?"

The Jews claim they control the US.
Well, maybe, now they claim they control Hezbolla too, of course many
Jews live in the US, but not all agree with Israel's policies.
Israel has the problem that it needs land for their children, and their
grand children.
So it steals land again and again.

The US has the problem that now everybody and their cat can make a nuke, wait
a bit, N Korea is ready to test perhaps, H type will follow, and as US
economy is really bad (deficit), and if the others have the same weapons, US
can no longer make others dance, that is why they are so shit scared about
others having nukes.
China's economy is much much stronger, it has nukes, it can already now
ignore US demands.
This the beginning of the end of N American civilisation, add some climate
change, and YOUR children will have to swim or use skates to the south,
all those countries who you made enemies, to ask for political asylum
as a 'climate fugitive', where 'climate' is both political and weather
related.
There is _your_ future.

>Pante, if you think that I am the only one asking this here in the US,
>then you are a truly fanatical Hezbollalalaler... or being married to one..
>ahahaha..

lalala

>AFAIAC my beef is that this Bush war has not been conducted
>in fashion of the WWII style. You, of all people should know this
>instead of you complaining about "100000 civilians in Iraq".

100000 is now the official number, and it was only Iraq,
US has killed many more since WW2.

>If you go to war you kill so many of them
>that the surviving ones come and beg you to spare their
>"hearts and minds".

Exactly.

>If worked for Japan and Nazi Germany
>beautifully and for their own good... with you Netherlanders
>having being the beneficiaries thereof... You are an ingrate,
>Pante. You would do far more good if you (collectively) would
>help us Amis in order for you to avoid that your grandkids will
>not be forced to do 5 daily ass-venting exercises facing Mecca.

EU knows how to defend itself against becoming an Islamitic state,
Nobody here wants that, you under estimate technology here, we
can make funny weapons too.
At least Eurofighter flies.

>Pante, I hope, for your benefit, that you will not crank yourself
>over this post... and for god's sake don't post when you are
>pre-conditioned by your bong.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>Thanks for the laughs. Pante.
>ahahahaha... ahahahanson

hihihi

Date: 22 Aug 2006 21:52:54
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In sci.astro.amateur, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com > wrote:
: The Jews claim they control the US.

Really? I thought only ignorant dickheads like you claim that. What's this
crap doing in saa?

Date: 23 Aug 2006 02:13:55
From: hanson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"twit of lunacy" aka <twol@sol.org > did shine & wrote in message
news:44eb7cb6$0$34512$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The Jews claim they control the US.
>
[twit]
> Really? I thought only ignorant dickheads like you claim that.
>
[hanson]
Hey, twit, with the wording of your 1-liner you have managed to
create and spread even more international Anti-Semitism then
there already is.... especially if you are a Jew, yourself... ahahaha...

To boot, it looks more like Dutchman Pante did touch a
raw nerve in you, twit..... if not, then what is your "thought" why
it happened that Pante's perception came into being and why
his impression is so strongly believed around the world now...
... and why this same notion can be heard ever louder on US
TV in network news segments and on talk shows?... ahahaha...

Furthermore, twit, can you give Pante a decent & honest answer why....

"...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax money each
year for the last 60 years, and an equal $$ amount to the ass-venters
to placate and pacify them so that they don't continue to kick Jew ass,
begs the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars buying
the American public, besides continuous terrorism, mayhem and war
where Jews being connected to or are involved in ? --- What good or
benefit has come in return to the American taxpayers from Israel for
all that tax money that came off the tables from poor American families?"
>
Twit, tell these "ignorant dickheads" where the benefits are... ahahaha...
Remember, it is normally Zionist Jews, the ashkeNAZI type, who answer
with cuss words, like you just did, .... cuz their nerves are raw when it
comes to this subject. One wonders why?...... AHAHAHAHA......
.... ahahahaha... But, thanks for the laughs, dude
ahahaha... ahahahanson

Date: 23 Aug 2006 11:15:57
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

In a moment of insanity (22 Aug 2006 21:52:54 GMT) twol@sol.org wrote in
<44eb7cb6$0$34512$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:

>what is this crap doing in saa?

Dunno, YOU wrote that.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:05:42
From: Math Freak
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:31:00 GMT, hanson wrote:

> [Mehram]
>> "peydA kardane ellate divAnegiye ashkhAs kAre AsAni
>> nist." - Bozorg Alavi [2]
>>
> [hanson]
> It says:
> "Mehram's paid a hardon fellate divine negative ash as kack
> anilingiust to Bozo's organ, lavishly"...

Hahahha :) Yes that's about as far as those items are
related to the archeologists's claims.

Let me give you just one example. They take
Mesopotamian dildos that they sometimes find in those
graves to mean, "symbols of their primitive gods"...

Leave it to the hands of Westerners, and those
guilt-ridden slavish little minds will find refuge only
in conclusions that they can feel comfortable with.

You're not fit for science.

--

"Aghel be kenAre Ab tA pol mijost
divAneye pAberehne az Ab gozasht"

Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:26:43
From: hanson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

AHAHAHA... ahahaha... the irate Iranian, Mehram Maleki
aka "Math Freak" <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com > w/i
news:1kkjeoewlkbn2$.1wu21n7wnsmwq$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> [Mehram]
>>> "peydA kardane ellate divAnegiye ashkhAs kAre As
>>> Aninist." - Bozorg Alavi
>>>
>> [hanson]
>> It says: "Mehram has
>> paid a hardon fellate divine negative ash as kack
>> anilingiust to Bozo's organ, lavishly"...
>
[Mehram]
> Hahahha :) Yes that's about as far as those items are
> related to the archeologists's claims.
> Let me give you just one example. They take
> Mesopotamian dildos that they sometimes find in those
> graves to mean, "symbols of their primitive gods"...
>
[hanson]
Mehram, why are you echoing what I have stated already
much better in my previous post.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8fae021538fc734
You are parroting me to say the least but more likely
you are exercising your talents of copying me/plagiarizing,
a habit that is routinely done by pseudo/wanna-be scientists,
like you in your part of the world. ... ahahahaha....
>
[Mehram]
> Let me give you just one example. They take
> Mesopotamian dildos that they sometimes find in those
> graves to mean, "symbols of their primitive gods"...
> Leave it to the hands of Westerners, and those
> guilt-ridden slavish little minds will find refuge only
> in conclusions that they can feel comfortable with.
> You're not fit for science.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... I am sorry to have rile you up, Mehram,
but the look at it soberly and scientifically... ahahahaha....
Abraham of Ur in Chaldea, Mesopotamia, current day Iraq,
was one of those Dildo artists, but whether
dildos were "symbols of their primitive gods" is immaterial,
because Abe, your cousin there, had a truly novel idea,
a brain fart that became the pestilence of humankind
for millennia to come. See here under: "Here are the markers":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/18b241900337db54
Your Dildo Abe gave birth to the criminal base for the sociopathy
of Monotheism. Its 3 spawns, Judaism, Christianity and your
Johnny-come-lately Islam are all equally bad open sores on
humankind.... It doesn't need science to see that, Mehram.
>
[Mehram]
>"Aghel be kenAre Ab tA pol mijost
>divAneye pAberehne az Ab gozasht"
>
[hanson]
It says: "Mehram has
Argued hellbent [in his] kennel to a polish jew
divining an eye prepared as gozilla shit"

ahahaha...ahahaha.. Take care of your dildo habit
now, Mehram... and thanks for the laughs....
ahahaha... ahahanson

Date: 26 Aug 2006 11:04:41
From: Math Freak
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:26:43 GMT, hanson wrote:

> ahahaha... I am sorry to have rile you up, Mehram,
> but the look at it soberly and scientifically... ahahahaha....
> Abraham of Ur in Chaldea, Mesopotamia, current day Iraq,
> was one of those Dildo artists, but whether
> dildos were "symbols of their primitive gods" is immaterial,
> because Abe, your cousin there, had a truly novel idea,
> a brain fart that became the pestilence of humankind
> for millennia to come. See here under: "Here are the markers":
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/18b241900337db54
> Your Dildo Abe gave birth to the criminal base for the sociopathy
> of Monotheism. Its 3 spawns, Judaism, Christianity and your
> Johnny-come-lately Islam are all equally bad open sores on
> humankind.... It doesn't need science to see that, Mehram.

More clearly put, it does need science to see it
carefully, and therefore it is neither a task for a
Westerner to take up, nor is it his business doing so.
You Westerners make your H-bombs and hide behind them.
That's the best (and only) thing you can do.

Paganism is even more involved. God forbid if I ask you
this, but, you probably know me by now. What do you
think of Paganism? I am asking you this because I want
to know if you've really progressed since you finished
eating the aboriginal Blacks in Europe.

--

"emruz sarafrAziye dey rA honari nist
mibAyad azemsAl sokhan rAnd na az pAr"

- Parvin E'tesami

Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:03:41
From: London England
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Date: 21 Aug 2006 14:49:27
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:03:41 GMT, London England wrote:

> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:jXmGg.146092$1i1.73595@attbi_s72...
>>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> Hogwash!

What are you after, Mick? Do you want people to think you are funny?
Smart? Do you want to see everybody who cares about this group and tries
to make genuine contributions all throw their hands up as they walk away
from it and say, "I give up Mick, you won. I can't take this anymore."

Why is it important to you that all here have the inability to escape your
meaningless dribble by constantly morphing your identity to escape filters?
Why will you have some snide, uncalled for, and unjustified rationalization
for your actions as well as an attack on me soon to follow your reading of
this response?

What do you want, Mick? What are you after?

--
Martin R. Howell

Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:26:26
From: London England
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

wow....

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14456485/

Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:32:25
From: PD
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Sam Wormley wrote:
> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

TomGee, are you listening????

PD

Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:18:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Sam Wormley wrote:
> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

.

Once you have your 'proof' of dark matter,good,now what ?,I have a bag
of dark matter I keep in my closet and I am willing to sell you this
stuff at a knockdown price,it is extra refined for you Sam,so pure
that you can shine a light through it and not notice any effect.

The working principles of astronomical discoveries should be only now
coming into their own as applied to geology and climatology,instead we
still have to wade through this junk and unless you are the last to
notice,humanity's tolerance for this exotic nonsense is well passed its
shelf life.

Billions are being wasted on a proof nobody cares about while
climatological and geological studies meshing with planetary motions
are almost subhuman in content and character.How long can you keep up
with empirical insincerity .

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:33:05
From:
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Sam Wormley schreef:

> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

Now all that is left is for them to prove they can still land a person
alive
on the moon and return him to earth safely.

Without help from a German professor named Von Braun.

Anyone taking bets on first time fail?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 19:39:26
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On a gloomy day, panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley schreef:
>
>> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> Now all that is left is for them to prove they can still land a person
> alive on the moon and return him to earth safely.
>
> Without help from a German professor named Von Braun.
>
> Anyone taking bets on first time fail?
>

Are you bitter, Jan, for any particular reason?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 19:49:58
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:39:26 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in <OZnGg.146163$1i1.18770@attbi_s72>:

>On a gloomy day, panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley schreef:
>>
>>> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>>
>> Now all that is left is for them to prove they can still land a person
>> alive on the moon and return him to earth safely.
>>
>> Without help from a German professor named Von Braun.
>>
>> Anyone taking bets on first time fail?
>>
>
> Are you bitter, Jan, for any particular reason?

There is also such a thing as realistic.
From a _realistic_ POV and from how US policics and general operations
etc etc and even NASA works, I would not be too sure it works the next
first time.

I have been reading they have been taking pieces of hardware from space
museums.... to learn how it was done.

Without the man with the big vision and experience in _all_ related fields
and the want to go there.. if it will help?
Sure there will be a lot of betting.
If they ever get around to it, maybe the next administration wants a second
ISS, but then name it USSS ;-)
oops.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:32:14
From: FrediFizzx
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:jXmGg.146092$1i1.73595@attbi_s72...
> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

There is a downloadable movie explaining this at,

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm

Pretty wild that maybe the dark matter gets ahead of the colliding
galaxies. I am a bit skeptical about that.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Date: 22 Aug 2006 20:56:32
From: greysky
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:jXmGg.146092$1i1.73595@attbi_s72...
>A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

Sure, and all they have to prove is that those (false color) blue regions
are not caused by x-ray fluorescence of the halo surrounding it all...

Date: 22 Aug 2006 12:59:30
From: Lynette
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:
> Now all that is left is for them to prove they can still land a person
> alive on the moon and return him to earth safely.

But that's not NASA's job, it's *your* job (you, in the private
sector). The time for governments' monopolization of outer space is
over. It's our domain, too.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 20:58:21
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On a sunny day (22 Aug 2006 12:59:30 -0700) it happened "Lynette"
<lynette_19@hotmail.com > wrote in
<1156276770.935493.227930@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >:

>panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Now all that is left is for them to prove they can still land a person
>> alive on the moon and return him to earth safely.
>
>But that's not NASA's job, it's *your* job (you, in the private
>sector). The time for governments' monopolization of outer space is
>over. It's our domain, too.

Sure, but does mr GWBush see it that way?
For all I know he has given NASA the directive to do a moon and mars trip.
You know Mr GWBush is selected or rather put forward by corporate America.

It is a win-win situation, either private enterprise does it, or congress
tells NASA to do it, and NASA lets private enterprise do it by handing out
contracts.
Hiring people who agree with current policy, firing people who have other
opinions.....

Only problem is every 4 years they change plans......
As preparing for moon and mars landing takes > 4 years, or > 8, that is the
reason we will have Chinese, Japanese, and Russian restaurants and drinks
on mars ready to await the first US marsonauts.

This analysis right? It is late...

Oh, I forgot Italian pizza stands in Reull Vallis, next to the lake:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/space/mars/lake2color.jpg
From this original:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34508

Martian fish, sushi, mmmm best served cold.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 11:42:13
From: zzbunker@netscape.net
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley schreef:
>
> > A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> > http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> Now all that is left is for them to prove they can still land a person
> alive
> on the moon and return him to earth safely.
>
> Without help from a German professor named Von Braun.
>
> Anyone taking bets on first time fail?

Sure, since the only thing Von Braun had to do with it,
is that Goddard didn't call him an idiot.

And the only thing Germany had to do with it,
is that Einstein only called half of them idiots.

Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:45:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Fireballs wrote:
> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:8stoe2tqm3lfnkkpca9i3epjpl8rrlqclp@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
> > <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Anonymous trolling. How grown up.
> >
> > Anonymous in name, but not in style. Not a very sophisticated troll.
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> >
>
> Truth has a way of being insulting don't it??

Yes it does !.

Any intelligent person can figure out what happens next as 'dark
matter' comes from a specific type of reasoning that has no real
value,at least astronomically.

Looking at these guys peering through their telescopes suggest that
they are easily pleased and although not denying them their
magnification pleasures,most people prefer a wider view of astronomical
things which these poor creatures cannot grasp.

Truth is not insulting to those who are sincere,genuine and have a real
love of astronomy,that these people here adopted a false Ra/Dec system
to reflect the great Western astronomical insights means that their
only reward is a perverse satisfaction in insults.

Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:03:27
From: PD
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Sam Wormley wrote:
> A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html

I for one think that a clearly separated macroscopic distribution of
dark matter makes it pretty darn unlikely that dark matter is
comprised, say, of LSPs (lightest supersymmetric particles) or some
other form of exotic matter.

This means that it is more likely to be mundane matter, just not lit
up, and we have made a mistake in figuring out how to account for it.
Aside from worries about baryogenesis, this doesn't seem like a fatal
flaw of the hypothesis.

But the presence of a large amount of mundane matter with a looser
distribution than lit-up matter would mean that the universe has not
coalesced into clumps (galaxies) nearly as much as we think it has.
This in turn would suggest that the universe is quite a bit *younger*
than we think it is, I believe.

Does anyone else agree or heartily disagree?

PD

Date: 23 Aug 2006 11:33:55
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156341807.834151.317860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> > http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> I for one think that a clearly separated macroscopic distribution of
> dark matter makes it pretty darn unlikely that dark matter is
> comprised, say, of LSPs (lightest supersymmetric particles) or some
> other form of exotic matter.
>
> This means that it is more likely to be mundane matter, just not lit
> up, and we have made a mistake in figuring out how to account for it.
> Aside from worries about baryogenesis, this doesn't seem like a fatal
> flaw of the hypothesis.
>
> But the presence of a large amount of mundane matter with a looser
> distribution than lit-up matter would mean that the universe has not
> coalesced into clumps (galaxies) nearly as much as we think it has.
> This in turn would suggest that the universe is quite a bit *younger*
> than we think it is, I believe.
>
> Does anyone else agree or heartily disagree?

I disagree (although "heartily" might be a tad strong
here).

If dark component is separated by collision in
the way it is alleged to have happened, then it
is certainly not mundane matter as it does not
interact electromagnetically, and probably not by
the strong or weak forces either. That's fairly
non-mundane in my books.

Without electromagnetically based frictional forces to
work on it, dark matter would not be expected to clump
in the way (or at least with the same relaxation time)
that normal matter does. Normal matter clouds collapse
relatively quickly gravitationally because it can shed
kinetic energy as radiated heat (electromagnetic energy)
via friction.

Dark matter doesn't "do" the electromagnetic thing, and
only has dynamical friction to remove its kinetic energy.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 01:08:36
From: Bless You
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Greg Neill wrote:

> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156341807.834151.317860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> > > http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
> >
> > I for one think that a clearly separated macroscopic distribution of
> > dark matter makes it pretty darn unlikely that dark matter is
> > comprised, say, of LSPs (lightest supersymmetric particles) or some
> > other form of exotic matter.
> >
> > This means that it is more likely to be mundane matter, just not lit
> > up, and we have made a mistake in figuring out how to account for it.
> > Aside from worries about baryogenesis, this doesn't seem like a fatal
> > flaw of the hypothesis.
> >
> > But the presence of a large amount of mundane matter with a looser
> > distribution than lit-up matter would mean that the universe has not
> > coalesced into clumps (galaxies) nearly as much as we think it has.
> > This in turn would suggest that the universe is quite a bit *younger*
> > than we think it is, I believe.
> >
> > Does anyone else agree or heartily disagree?
>
> I disagree (although "heartily" might be a tad strong
> here).
>
> If dark component is separated by collision in
> the way it is alleged to have happened, then it
> is certainly not mundane matter as it does not
> interact electromagnetically, and probably not by
> the strong or weak forces either. That's fairly
> non-mundane in my books.

absolutely not mundane but would be extremely exciting and potentially
revolutionary. But, that is precisely what must be demonstrated ... in the
lab.
People will get at this asap.

>
>
> Without electromagnetically based frictional forces to
> work on it, dark matter would not be expected to clump
> in the way (or at least with the same relaxation time)
> that normal matter does.

again such traits have to be demonstrated by some X which is that kind of
matter.

> Normal matter clouds collapse
> relatively quickly gravitationally because it can shed
> kinetic energy as radiated heat (electromagnetic energy)
> via friction.
>
> Dark matter doesn't "do" the electromagnetic thing, and
> only has dynamical friction to remove its kinetic energy.

I cannot conceive of a form of _matter_ which is electromagnetically
neutral.
That in my book would not be any form of matter known ? To say that such a
form of matter comprises say 90% of the known universe is tantamount imho
to saying: ' there is a form of matter previously unknown which comprises
the
bulk of the mass of existence'! It would be like finding a third parent
when two
were only required, previously?

Im puzzled ...

Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:28:30
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"Bless You" <henipah@ai5.net > wrote in message news:44ED4264.FD4A781E@ai5.net...

> I cannot conceive of a form of _matter_ which is electromagnetically
> neutral.
> That in my book would not be any form of matter known ? To say that such a
> form of matter comprises say 90% of the known universe is tantamount imho
> to saying: ' there is a form of matter previously unknown which comprises
> the
> bulk of the mass of existence'! It would be like finding a third parent
> when two
> were only required, previously?
>
> Im puzzled ...

Well, there exist particles for which some of the
known forces do not have any effect, such as the
strong force and electrons. For that matter,
neutrinos are uncharged and not affected by
electromagnetic fields, and have incredibly small
interaction cross sections with other matter. So
it's not so big a stretch to dark matter with
even smaller (zero?) cross section and no
electromagnetic interaction. Think about what
properties really massive neutrinos might have.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 09:52:26
From: Ben Newsam
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:08:36 -0500, Bless You <henipah@ai5.net > wrote:
>I cannot conceive of a form of _matter_ which is electromagnetically
>neutral.
>That in my book would not be any form of matter known ? To say that such a
>form of matter comprises say 90% of the known universe is tantamount imho
>to saying: ' there is a form of matter previously unknown which comprises
>the
>bulk of the mass of existence'! It would be like finding a third parent
>when two
>were only required, previously?

You did say 90%? More like finding 18 more parents....

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:56:12
From: FrediFizzx
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156341807.834151.317860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> > http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> I for one think that a clearly separated macroscopic distribution of
> dark matter makes it pretty darn unlikely that dark matter is
> comprised, say, of LSPs (lightest supersymmetric particles) or some
> other form of exotic matter.
>
> This means that it is more likely to be mundane matter, just not lit
> up, and we have made a mistake in figuring out how to account for it.
> Aside from worries about baryogenesis, this doesn't seem like a fatal
> flaw of the hypothesis.

What exactly is "mundane matter"? Do you mean something that is even
more neutral than neutrinos? Or do you mean electrons, protons and
neutrons that aren't radiating? I think that is ruled out by the "dark
matter" not interacting much during the collision. The "dark matter"
seems to be interacting gravitationally mostly. Perhaps a dual
spacetime scenario can only explain this in which in the other
spacetime, gravity is the strongest interaction and the others are
weaker? What we are seeing is the other 3-brane "leaking" into our
spacetime.

> But the presence of a large amount of mundane matter with a looser
> distribution than lit-up matter would mean that the universe has not
> coalesced into clumps (galaxies) nearly as much as we think it has.
> This in turn would suggest that the universe is quite a bit *younger*
> than we think it is, I believe.
>
> Does anyone else agree or heartily disagree?

In a constant creation dual spacetime scenario (two partially
intersecting 3-branes), our perspective of the Universe could be both
old and younger.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Date: 24 Aug 2006 01:01:23
From: Bless You
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

PD wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> > http://www.physorg.com/news75387135.html
>
> I for one think that a clearly separated macroscopic distribution of
> dark matter makes it pretty darn unlikely that dark matter is
> comprised, say, of LSPs (lightest supersymmetric particles) or some
> other form of exotic matter.
>
> This means that it is more likely to be mundane matter, just not lit
> up, and we have made a mistake in figuring out how to account for it.
> Aside from worries about baryogenesis, this doesn't seem like a fatal
> flaw of the hypothesis.
>
> But the presence of a large amount of mundane matter with a looser
> distribution than lit-up matter would mean that the universe has not
> coalesced into clumps (galaxies) nearly as much as we think it has.
> This in turn would suggest that the universe is quite a bit *younger*
> than we think it is, I believe.
>
> Does anyone else agree or heartily disagree?
>
> PD

well I think yours is a very good stance _ based on common sense. Im
troubled
every time 'moderns' leap to an 'exotic' explanation. I have no doubt
people will
rush to uncover new sub_atomic particles but that work needed restoration
anyway, and it hardly would mean such new 'beauties' _are_ dark matter!

I would not reject the discovery of some unknown form of matter right in
front of
my nose which then can be shown to exist in abundance on a macro scale,
but
someone is going to have a very rough go convincing me that such exotics
are
responsible for the gravitational effects being seen vs ordinary inert
matter which
classical theory already said was abundant but not counted ?

Time will tell.

jw

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:20:03
From: Bart
Subject: Re: A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

I personally find the claim that the discovery independelty confirms
the existence of dark matter while also stating that there is only one
experimental method for verifying its existence (gravitational anomoly)
verging on the insane. It is equivalent to the line of argument which
goes along the lines of "I told you so", which is not scientifically
satisfying. So far as I am aware it is neglect of science when a theory
is confirmed time and again by only one method. Better is to have
several different experimental methods, ie gravitational anomoly is a
valid anomoly and accounting for every single gravitational anomoly
with the same single cause is the exact antithesis of science.

How you claim an independent confirmation when you used the same bad
science to do it, is honestly lost on me completely.