The artist formally known as Bill L. ?

*very much; one would expect a Fred Hoyle style continuous creation thingee to be visible at some level; a very low level.

Anyways, the post with the included link to xkcd, that was me. Nutty tangent about Obama, definitely not me.

Man, this sucks. I can't just go with my first name anymore… Thanks for ruining my day, Crazy-Ass Bill.

I'm not responding for the trolls sake, but there may be readers here who are interested in why the atmosphere doesn't form layers and don't know the science involved. Ignoring dumb ideas may work in academia where the harshest thing is being ignored by your peers. We're on the internet though.

I think the best you can hope for is that there is a very slightly greater concentration of dark matter in and around more massive normal objects like stars, but even then it would be like finding a very, very slightly more dense area of gas, not a ring or a moon of DM.

Just listen to the sheer stupidity of these people, but being the optimist i am, i think the best explanation is that these are trolls…they are more than 14 kinds of wrong, and they know it….troll'ism at its best.

Well, the only explanation is that the DM is internally bound with much stronger forces than the gravitation, and actually does not create any gravitationally bound objects, and does not amass in the way visible matter does, and rather creates a mesh (like a sponge) through which the visible objects move freely. If it is so, then the theory about the DM being formed by strongly interacting particles does not make sense to me.

Anyway I admit I am ignorant as for DM goes, and know about it as little as the experts studying it

It would be funky if the spiritual world existed in Dark Matter

Hmm. Sounds like an idea for my next book (if I ever finish my first one, that is!).

Mind if I steal it?

(just kidding).

Oh my god… Someone is WRONG on the INTERNET!

all the sane people in the forum, please simply ignore the retards….maybe call them names or something.

What about something as simple as there is an extended halo of gas, dust, lone stars and brown dwarfs around the galaxies that goes out, let's say 4 times as far as the easily visible galaxy limits.

We've already detected halos producing x-ray emissions but what if there is still an even greater halo than the x-ray producing region.

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/02/04/hot-halo-surrounds-distant-galaxy/

1) There is 22 times as much oxygen in the atmosphere than argon.

2) Argon is only 25% more dense than oxygen, so Argon doesn't settle out in a layer below oxygen because even the slightest current of air is enough to mix the gases. If you're in a completely sealed room, your movement and the very act of breathing in will ensure that you get enough oxygen to breath, even if you're lying with your nose to the floor.

3) In addition, the effect of Brownian motion (look it up) will help to mix the gases too.

Hint: do some reading. This really is very basic science — there is no mystery, no conspiracy of silence, just very basic high school physics and chemistry. Wikipedia is always a good place to start.

He's already had his misconceptions explained to him on at least one other forum that I regularly attend.

Your argument is a strawman, an absurdly simplified version of physics, the theory of gravity doesn't predict anything like an layered atmosphere, thus saying "the atmosphere isn't layered!" doesn't prove anything.

What it boils down to: The atmosphere isn't the static thing that you picture. All the different atmospheric gases are mixed together into a swirling mass through the process of diffusion. This page on Wikipedia describes diffusion with the aid of diagrams – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

The Brownian motion of molecules prevents the atmosphere from forming layers.

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture OillsMastery, you can "disprove" all scientific theories if you ignore all the other factors that are involved in observed phenomena.

I could go on poking holes in your statements, but you bore me. Moving on to the next article.

I still find it pretty astounding how some people will reject the work of tens of thousands of scientists over the last three hundred years — work that has been confirmed observationally to the nth degree countless number of times — and then claim to believe one or two cranks who usually aren't even scientists and who spout crackpot theories that aren't even good science fiction.

It's utterly bizarre, and at some point (as with Oils) you just have to throw up your hands and give up trying to teach these people anything. They're just not interested in learning in the first place.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."