a black hole started this universe when the big bang if any of you noticed there was a black hole that collapsed destroying itaself but destroying the big bang

the big bang dint just explode it collapsed the big black hole was relly big it spreaded millions of black holes all over the universe no one knows what might be out there but if you ever pass this solar system you will all meet your DOOM

It is true that Cold Dark Matter is just a theory, and it is not a perfect theory either. It describes the Universe we see pretty well, at least on the largest scales, but on the smallest scales it does not work so well. Nevertheless, this may just mean that Dark Matter is "hotter" than originally thought. Now, maybe the answer is not dark matter, but it is the best theory we have at this moment in time. And remember, just because we haven't observed the dark matter particle, does not mean that it doesn't exist. When I was an undergraduate student, we still had not observed the top quark, yet theory suggested that it should exist. And by the time I graduated the top quark had been observed at CERN. I'm sure there were people who didn't believe in it then, just as there are people who do not believe in dark matter now, and just as there were people in the 19th century, who believed that humans would never be able to fly.

[...] of a galaxy. This goes in some way to explain the link between small, stellar black holes and the supermassive black holes sitting in the middle of larger galaxies (such as the Milky Way). An Intermediate black hole could [...]

i was thinking of my own self-conjectures…. is it possible that the other nearby universe we derive gravity from (and ?? the weak nuclear force, as well as the even weaker interactions which seem to cause the quantum movements of sub atomic particles) simply share and help to attract, and build upon certain aspects each other even during the early times of inflation right after the big bang to the times of our galaxy formation? let me get this straight: are matter and dark matter (whatever it is, perhaps if M~theory/ String(s) theory is correct that it really is the matter or effects of it in the nearby universe(s)) weakly interact but only via the warping of gravity and pehaps only on a minute scale even on the subatomic level or perhaps a mysterious type of neutrino (*I believe its the relic neutrino) is the culprit, however this is *unlikely due to the fact that not one has been seen (yet?).

~ i mean even this is easier to swallow than particle that just do not seem to exist or at least be detectable… <- fair criticisms,
…and if graphite wiskers does kill Dark Energy, the fact of the matter is: even if graphite wiskers are obscuring our type 1A Super Novas, {and not to mention not one WIMP has been found in the lab}; this doesn't actually "disprove" dark energy (or dark matter), …but, even you, IAN, i think can agree that this is raising some serious doubts and all Dark issues.

~I wonder what the standard model will look like after the calculation of the effects of the graphite wiskers are taken into account. Anyone know if Dark Energy is still around, or the new estimated amount of stuff? (including Dark matter & *esp* Dark Energy ?)

Consider the sentence, "I might add that the dualism of particle and waves also allows a God wave function and only some expectation values have a sufficient probability to burn ideas of energy vectors into bachelors brains."

[...] Time 3/11 Posted by: proficientstudent in 20% Time I read an article titled Greedy Supermassive Black Holes Dislike Dark Matter, that was written by Ian O'Neill, which I found at Universe Today.com.  In the article they [...]

Dear david why should your educated trained and commercial wife peck an eye out of Ian.
they are the same kind.
They make their money with the ant to elephant size inflating.
And why do you think your patronizing would impress me and the other sceptics when it comes to questioning the scientific and journalistic value of the botch.
It is not important if it is written correctly from a craftsmanship point of view.
Even a perfectly mastered DVD in a platinum box can contain crappy story and actors.

Your bachelor seems not enough to see the epistemologic limits and the difference between science and speculation.

Let us wait for the next ant inflation.

But to the real discussion… My only credential is a bachelors in physics. I have problems with the concept of dark matter and dark energy myself. I suspect that although the math describing gravity in the local frame of reference works quite well, there are areas where they aren't as effective. There are many issues at the quantum scale, obviously, and possibly we should consider that we need to define a new scale, that of extreme distance.

Another idea of interest would be the concept that areas of space/time could have higher energy densities embedded in the fabric of space/time itself. These would not be immediately apparent, because at any point in seemingly "empty" space/time the energy (expressed as vectors) sum to zero. But they could conceivably create "heavy spots" in space/time, a local curvature that isn't created by any visible mass or energy. Alternatively, areas with unusually low embedded energy would create "light spots".

How this concept would interact with the data from the anisotropy map of background IR, which I understand to be the basis for the conclusion that space is "flat" in our visible universe, I don't really know. But its an interesting area to explore.

Never seen one of these before [save into Bookmarks]

This should be, and already is, a lot of fun…

"Dark matter is predicted to be collisionless and will be scattered very easily by baryonic gas clouds and stars. It seems unlikely that dark matter will be able to stay inside the black hole's accretion disk for very long before it is repelled by all the "normal" matter being pulled toward the event horizon"
With:
"This statement makes no sense. If DM is collisionless both with itself and with baryonic matter, then no scattering/repulsion can occur. If only gravity is at work, then the opposite should happen."

First, the collisionless plasma model is, in essence: A model of a plasma in which the density is so low, or the temperature so high, that close binary (two-body) collisions have practically no significance (on certain timescales) because the time scales of interest are shorter than the collision time. Yields valid physical results for timescales much shorter than the average collision time in a real plasma.

Collisionless dark matter 'clouds' can interact gravitationally with baryonic gas (largely plasma), or with itself. Collisionless simply implies that there are no, or very few, direct two body collisions. (Consider the effect of an asteroid that passes very close to the earth but does not collide. It interacts gravitationally and may be 'scattered' into a new orbit without a two-body collision.

You escapists and dreamers just have no respect to real world scienctific work.

I am sure that your kind is waiting for lurid botch freely associated from upcoming LHC results.
Ian can feed your monkeys.

Later this year CERN will be launching the Large Hadron Collider, whose energy capabilities are robust enough to probe for the Higgs boson, and perhaps reveal unseen properties of dark matter and dark energy. THERE WILL BE SURPRISES GALORE.

Cathbad, keep your eyes and ears open, bu t remember to keep your mouth shut,

feel confirmed and criticised. Your fame is to play the sacrificial lamb.
Your fans like the lurid botch.
Now be a man and stand the fact that there are some people out that see and name the disease. No not me. read the comments.
You do ignore what you dont want to hear. Your choice. The things are still visible.
I can confirm you are an eloquent and serious writer for your fandom, but neither your lurid style (GREEDY holes and DISLIKE of DM,…..) nor this infusion about a computer simulation (yes a simulation) qualifies you as a scientific jounalist….and you know it.

Hide in whatever excuse you prefer.
Rather patronizing nor ignorance will save you from being charged a yellow press copycat.

About the article. It says no more and no less that a computer simulation delivered an upper bound of 10% (could be far less) for a DM contribution to the luminosity of relativistic matter falling into a massive black hole. I am here not refering now to the fact that DM is a picture, a model not a empiric result,. This is just the thin ice your stories stand on.

What you make out of the simple computer simulation paper ? A lurid story about greedy holes that dont like DM.
Is that science, science exegesis, simple rephrasing in fandom scene language ?

Be a man and stand the critics that tell you that this is not really a quantum leap, neither in your kind of 'theorethical physics' nor in scientific journalism.

Go ahead and rejoice in your fans and accept that some dont fall from your intellectual bremsstrahlung.

Finally Bob, great idea to ask me for an article.
What do you expect ? the same kind of knock off like Ian likes to spread for some bucks of fee ?
There is not much more to say about this analysis paper than what is already said before.
Do you expect me to bloviate in anthropomorphisms and some free association on unsave ground ?

Make Ian your jester and let him waffle on speculative parts of theories, since it enriches your creative process of generating new theories the scientific world has waited for.
This is like pinpointing the physical meaning of the negative solution of a squareroot.
You can do it if you like, but dont expect standing ovations for it.

As a trailer I admit that Ian is good in inflating an ant to the size of an elephant and impressing the woodlouses with it. Thats a talent indeed.

The Dark Matter debate is killing me.

You all do know what dark matter is, right?

Dark matter is the answer to the question "why is the milky way a spiral when the visible mass is not enough to maintain this interesting shape?"

There's nothing about interacting with particles, whether they annihilate themselves, etc. Thats the best part. How is anyone able to describe the behaviour of a bunch of particles that only exist on paper? ITS Not Real.

Why dark matter? Simple. Because no one has the stones to tell Isaac Newton that his calculations were off.

Thats it yall. Thats the whole argument. We can all go back to pretending we're experts about things that we don't know anything about and know that no one else does either.

These articles are great, but come on. Hundreds of pages of writing about particles that just don't exist, applying properties to some invisible matter that only interacts with gravity? What's more likely? 80% of the universe is invisible and intangible and only interacts with the rest of the universe just so we can fit it all within our presumptuous crosshairs, or perhaps a human that lived 400 years ago might not have carried a one?

Lets all just get over ourselves just a little bit.

Good for you for reading the comments sections. I'm sure you have other things to do. I come to Universe Today religiously and really enjoy it. My favourite (sorry, Canadian) articles are the theoretical ones about Dark Matter and fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist but I know what sounds like good science and what sounds "out there". Theories are just as interesting as discoveries and make the universe a fascinating place. I like to think my simple thoughts might be as close to the mark as the real brains in the field.
Keep it up!
Your fan,
Pete

Dark Matter is, in my books, simply a digestible concept for a solution to a difficult set of questions. The idea of dark matter is of non-interacting weirdo stuff. We can all wrap our brains around that. That doesn't mean that the solution will be the same in ten years. But why call it the "Missing Matter Solution" when Dark Matter is such an attractive name? Science tries to solve problems with the simplest solution and if we could just detect/hold/"see" this stuff, then that would solve this dilemma most satisfyingly. Rewriting years of physics doesn't seem quite as eloquent.

First, some positioning. I don't like dark matter. I wish there were observations to support dismissing it. There aren't. After reading everything I could find about DM for the last couple of years, and extensive forum discussions, there isn't any better explanation at this point. Try thinking of dark matter as some sort of non-interacting distributed mass, composed of who knows whats that are really difficult to detect.

Secondly, if you don't like the idea, offer some constructive and testable alternative that doesn't explain dark matter at the cost of all the rest of well tested and confirmed physics, from quarks to the largest structures in the universe. I think you'll find yourself proposing some version of – guess what – DM.

Since the dark matter does not radiate by this mechanism, it does not spiral in as rapidly and thus hangs back while the baryonic matter radiates it's energy and spirals down into the hole. It is not that dark matter is repelled by normal matter, it is only that dark matter does not experience this dissipative effect since it does not interact electromagnetically.

Rich L.