why do you want to add something else that can't be seen? we had enough trouble with the precursor library.

maybe with tech you might be able to see it, no?

So its a generally accepted theory? It is far from proven fact, like i said it just fits the data. heres another generally accepted theory: God exists. And lets throw that into the mix shall we; that hidden mass must be god. Praise the lord! Whatever you do don't tell the church!

No. God is not a theory, but a hypothesis. There is not enough proof of a God to make him an accepted theory.

Please learn what the correct definition of "theory" is. Gravity is a theory, nothing more. Yet frankly, if you told me it wasn't fact I would laugh at you repeatedly.

Don't forget that Black Holes are theory, not proven. Yet we can see them, if we look for clues. Note also how they completely defy certain laws of physics (2 electrons occupying the same space) to come into existence.

Anyway, we aren't going to do anything with it. Too weak for weapons, don't need the energy (in GC2 anyway), so what's the point?

They say, "It's there, we just can't find it yet."

--

If you want to avoid war weariness, you should be able to claim that another race has secret dark matter weapons of mass destruction and use that as a pretext to invade them.

Anyway, we aren't going to do anything with it. Too weak for weapons, don't need the energy (in GC2 anyway), so what's the point?

Just trying out supposed ideas to make the game more realistic.

The thing you all have to remember is that almost everything is Astrophysics outside of the Milky Way is guessing. Good guessing, but guessing nontheless. I could sit hear and read off my Astrophysics book you you all, but most of you would space out.

The basics of dark matter is that there are two ways to find the mass of objects one is for all objects (planets, stars, galaxies) and that is basic physics. The other is for luminous objects. In these situations you use a big formula that most of you have no care to see. This gets a luminosity of the galaxy in relation to our Sun. Since Astrophysics uses our sun to shorten the numbers we have that for our Sun, one luminosity is one solar mass. Now we have two mass numbers for the galaxy.

The two numbers don't match. The luminosity mass is ~10 times smaller than the physics mass. Hence since there is more matter that we can't see in luminosity, it is called dark matter and is estimated (it's been done a lot) to be ~90% of the universe. We don't know what it is or even if it really is matter, but it is necessary to explain a lot of things.

Oh, and black holes aren't a theory. We can "see" them in decaying binary systems. Its what in all they can do that we din't know.

Oh, and black holes aren't a theory. We can "see" them in decaying binary systems. Its what in all they can do that we din't know.

They are, and I mentioned they are visible. My point was the misuse of the word theory. In a proper scientific terms a "theory" is as close to fact as it is possible to get, until proven otherwise. Gravity is visible in a way, but it's still a theory. The big bang is a theory, and it got proved by the discovery of background radiation and temperature, that matches up to what it did. God however, is not a theory. There is no consistent proof.

I know black holes exist, I was pointing out the fact that arguing against "only a theory" is stupidity.

No. God is not a theory, but a hypothesis. There is not enough proof of a God to make him an accepted theory

No, god is a beleif. Beleif requires no proof, and with this I can say that "god exists" as my pet theory theory.

Please learn what the correct definition of "theory" is. Gravity is a theory, nothing more. Yet frankly, if you told me it wasn't fact I would laugh at you repeatedly.

Huh? Hypothesis IS a theory: they are practically the same thing, so please learn the correct definition yourself, pick up a dictionary!

Umm.. actually the reason why they believe Comet's seeded life on earth isnt because the comet had life already existing on it (microbes and such) but rather enough of them hit the earth to put water on the earth, which in turn gives way to life. The water hitched a ride to earth, not the microbes.

I'm afraid that you've got it slightly wrong there. Comets that form far away from the sun are rich in heavy water (the hydrogen component of the water has an extra neutron in its nucleus, this type of hydrogen is called deuterium) whereas the water on Earth is of the lighter variety. And I'm almost certain that 'they' say that the comets bringeth life to Earth.

To be honest, i'm more likely to come to terms with the dark matter theory than with the comet thingy.

BTW interesting 'fact' about black holes: "not even light can escape them", but they do emit xrays, the energy emitted is exactley the same as how much they 'consume'. So if you plan on black hole hunting find somewhere that is giving out serious amounts of xrays.

Gravity is a theory, nothing more. Yet frankly, if you told me it wasn't fact I would laugh at you repeatedly.

Gravity is not a theory. It is a real and testable force. Countless experiments have proven that gravity does, in fact, exist. If it was just "a theory, nothing more", then Newton's law of universal gravitation wouldn't be a law.

Matter warping spacetime, and thus causing gravity, is just a theory. So, what you should have said is: "The cause of gravity is a theory, nothing more." However, that wouldn't have made it such a "profound" statement.

>>>Hypothesis IS a theory: they are practically the same thing<<<

They are not the same thing to a scientist.

A hypothesis is an educated guess based on an observation of a single event or phenomenon. A hypothesis is a rational explanation, but not one that can be proved or disproved due to lack of supporting or contradictory evidence.

A theory is an explanation that covers a number of pre-established hypotheses and has been verified multiple times by various independent groups of researchers. It is important to note that a single scientist cannot declare a theory into existence; theories only come about when a (large) number of scientists have reached consensus and nobody has yet been able to produce any evidence to call their findings into question. There is nothing 'mere' at all in science about a theory.

In scientific terms, 'god exists' as a stand alone statement is not even a hypothesis.

In scientific terms, 'god exists' as a stand alone statement is not even a hypothesis.

God has not been proven not to exist; therefore he must exist. << think of this more often as a scientist and as a person.

>>>Hypothesis IS a theory: they are practically the same thing<<< They are not the same thing to a scientist. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on an observation of a single event or phenomenon. A hypothesis is a rational explanation, but not one that can be proved or disproved due to lack of supporting or contradictory evidence. A theory is an explanation that covers a number of pre-established hypotheses and has been verified multiple times by various independent groups of researchers. It is important to note that a single scientist cannot declare a theory into existence; theories only come about when a (large) number of scientists have reached consensus and nobody has yet been able to produce any evidence to call their findings into question. There is nothing 'mere' at all in science about a theory. In scientific terms, 'god exists' as a stand alone statement is not even a hypothesis.

Actually, you are both right and wrong. A theory is a hypothesis. However, a hypothesis is not necessarily a theory. A hypothesis must be testable and suffiently peer reviewed without being proven false, in order to become a theory.


"God exists" is not very testable. Anidotal evidence tends to show that results are not consistantly repeatable.

EDIT: Actually, Brendan Mason, wasn't really wrong, just not completely right.

Huh? Hypothesis IS a theory: they are practically the same thing, so please learn the correct definition yourself, pick up a dictionary!

You're completely and utterly wrong. As said before, hypothesis= educated guess.
Theory= tried and tested.

And once more, with the gravity "just a theory" statement, I was taking the piss out of those that discredit theory by saying "just a theory". I must remember to be literal in the future.

You're completely and utterly wrong. As said before, hypothesis= educated guess. Theory= tried and tested. No. God is not a theory, but a hypothesis. There is not enough proof of a God to make him an accepted theory.

God is not a guess as far as I can tell he is a belief that people choose to addopt as a real figure weather he is exists in true reality is anyone's guess but there is no proof to say he dosen't exist.

Well, when does theory become fact? I don't believe it ever does. Any theory is up for debate, even gravity. However, no one disputes the validity of that one. The idea with theory is "right until proven wrong". Most experiments go after disproving a theory rather than proving it.

And yes, "God exists" is a statement or belief. Unless a framework of experimentation could be set up around that and executed, it could never be a theory. It could be a hypothesis, but a legitimate hypothesis implies a framework of experimentation and a gathering of empirical data. There is little or none.

I guess talk of Astrophysics can get off topic rather quick.

I just want to make a short comment about the black holes and comet life discussions that have been going on.

People seem to make black holes far simpler than they actually are. Example: BHs suck stuff in, light can't escape them and they emit x-ray and ultraviolet radiation.

While this is basically true, much is lost in the simplification. In my first astrophysics class that I ever took we through the words "Black Hole" out, because in reality it is a spatial singularity. (interesting to note that it really acts similar to a mathematical singularity, the delta function, in the respect that it goes to infinity at one point). Because this singularity has such a large gravitational field space-time is distorted around the singularity (I'm simplifying this a bit too), this is what the event horizon is, the area around the singularity where space-time folds in on itself.

The x-rays and ultraviolet radiation that the "black hole" emits is not really emitted by the black hole at all, the stuff entering the event horizon (before it enters) is so superheated, and other stuff that I won't go into, it is what emits the radiation. So if nothing is falling into the event horizon of a spatial singularity it is almost undetectable.

Black holes don't suck. The fact is if our sun were to suddenly turn to a black hole AND it's mass were to remain the same there would be no noticeable change in any orbital path (with the exception of maybe mercury for various reasons) This is because for the purpose of orbital calculations all objects are treated as point masses anyway, which is all that a singularity is. So basically the gravitational field stays the same.

About the comet thing, there are huge molecular clouds in which complex organic molecules are known to form (I don't know which ones, but there are lots) if a comet were to pass through a cloud such as this and then crash on earth, who know what could happen. Plus anyone who says that a comet bringing life to earth is impossible needs a refresher in quantum mechanics.


Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just place holders for what we are trying to figure out, who know what it really is, but I guess a neutrino was just a place holder to satisfy a math equation and it was discovered to be real. But for the purpose of the game, if it sounds cool and has a cool graphic, then I say go for it, if they include it in the game, I'll build it.

(If any of what I said was inaccurate in some way please excuse me, this was all of the top of my head and my field of study is solar dynamics (living stars) not BH's or other such gravitational anomalies)

To LordSkippy:

>>>EDIT: Actually, Brendan Mason, wasn't really wrong, just not completely right.<<<

It's normally such a pain to precisely define these sorts of things in a post that doesn't take far too long, that I take it as a point of pride that I only *partially* muffed it. Cheers for the kind words.

The theory of dark matter arouse from people not really understanding gravity :/ It is plausible in a sense that it lets all the numbers add-up. Other than that we have 0 proof. Concept of dark matter is just whacky to most people because it's hard to imagine somethign we never experienced. Don't even get me started on dark energy.

Well, when does theory become fact? I don't believe it ever does. Any theory is up for debate, even gravity. However, no one disputes the validity of that one. The idea with theory is "right until proven wrong". Most experiments go after disproving a theory rather than proving it.

Theories become laws when they have proven correct for every instance. Take a high level logics coarse, and it will be explained in great detail exactly how to go about that (via induction, negation, etc.).

Also, no one disputes the "theory" of gravity, because gravity is not a theory! The cause of gravity is a theory, in fact there have been several theories on it, but gravity itself is a real and testable force.

This entire "gravity is a theory" stuff was pulled out of macro-evolutionists backsides while arguing with creationists, in order to try to give more "scientific weight" behind them. The problem with that is it promotes bad science in a dishonest attempt to strengthen their arguement. Plus, it's an arguement where the other side is really talking theology and not science.

The theory of dark matter arouse from people not really understanding gravity :/ It is plausible in a sense that it lets all the numbers add-up. Other than that we have 0 proof. Concept of dark matter is just whacky to most people because it's hard to imagine somethign we never experienced. Don't even get me started on dark energy.

So is the hypothesis of the end of the universe also made from those same people? Supposedly the Big Crunch would happen with a suffcient enough of Dark Matter involved in the process there is also the hypothesis of the Big Rip which involves Dark Matter as well are those now implausible considering what you have said?

So is the hypothesis of the end of the universe also made from those same people? Supposedly the Big Crunch would happen with a suffcient enough of Dark Matter involved in the process there is also the hypothesis of the Big Rip which involves Dark Matter as well are those now implausible considering what you have said?

The hypothesis of the big crunch is that the Universe isn't moving fast enough to escape it's own gravity. Now, if that's true, then the Universe will fall in onto itself, gnab gib, big crunch, whatever you may call it, the end of time. It's a few billion years away from the key point.

However, if it is moving fast enough, then it will expand forever. It may also become steady state, although given that the universe MUST have a precise mass and speed to reach that phase, steady state is unlikely.

The problem with that is it promotes bad science in a dishonest attempt to strengthen their arguement. Plus, it's an arguement where the other side is really talking theology and not science.

In fairness, gravity got "disproved". Einsteinian gravity replaced newtonian gravity (although it doesn't make much of a difference) proving that even laws can be changed, or at least somewhat altered. And when you have a group of people like theoligists, who pull terrible arguments out of their arses for a living, it's fair play.

The universe is 4% Matter, 21% Dark Matter and 75% Dark Energy

The beauty of science is that most of the time the theories are incorrect, which will then lead to new theories. With every wrong brings the world one step closer to what is correct. Except for one thing, nothing is ever "pulled out of someone’s backside". The things that real scientist come up with always has some basis, whether it is observational data or somehow caused by a theory or combination of theories (As told to me by my modern physics professor Glen A. Rebka, look him up he did some cool stuff dealing with gravitational redshift)

I like how you mentioned the possibility of a steady state Marcathonas, you don't hear about that one too often, but you're right that it's unlikely. In simpler terms the probability of that happening is like a pendulum reaching it's second equilibrium point (pendulums have two points of equilibrium, one at the bottom and one at the top). The probability of a pendulum reaching it's top equilibrium point and the universe reaching steady state are far less then 1.

Newtonian gravity never really got disproved, just expanded upon. Newton had reservations of the "action at a distance" idea and never gave a hypothesis on what causes gravity, or in his words never "assigned a cause to this power" Nevertheless Newtonian gravity is still used for may practical purposes where the gravitational potential is a small fraction of the speed of light squared, however any general case and cases where it is not a small fraction will need general relativity.

Theories become laws when they have proven correct for every instance.

Facts don't change nor can they ever be false. A theory can never be a fact because it can change or be disproved. The "laws" of physics all started as theories so when does theory become law? You state when it has been proven correct in every instance. What if that is just one instance? How many instances does it take? I believe theory and physical law are moving targets and it really boils down to what the scientific community decides is law versus theory. But, theory and physical law can never be fact or there would be a lot of stumped scientists.

Actually, you are both right and wrong. A theory is a hypothesis. However, a hypothesis is not necessarily a theory. A hypothesis must be testable and suffiently peer reviewed without being proven false, in order to become a theory.

Yeah I'll go with that. Hey marcanthonas! lets not split hairs - truce?

A theory is an explanation that covers a number of pre-established hypotheses and has been verified multiple times by various independent groups of researchers. It is important to note that a single scientist cannot declare a theory into existence; theories only come about when a (large) number of scientists have reached consensus and nobody has yet been able to produce any evidence to call their findings into question. There is nothing 'mere' at all in science about a theory.

really? Okay how about this then? Its a simplified version of the ontological argument:

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

Wow! so god exists and here is the proof, heh heh, so by this rationale the 90% mass of the universe is god because there can be no greater thing than god. Aren't proofs great?

About the comet thing, there are huge molecular clouds in which complex organic molecules are known to form (I don't know which ones, but there are lots) if a comet were to pass through a cloud such as this and then crash on earth, who know what could happen. Plus anyone who says that a comet bringing life to earth is impossible needs a refresher in quantum mechanics.

So huge molecular clouds eh? by known you mean there are samples? Nevermind. So a comet forms in deep space. It whizzing about the universe and passes through the mega huge cloud and those cute microbes hitch a ride on it. then it carries on through the universe happily avoiding every massive stellar object to hit a tiny planet (in galactic terms earth is barely a pinprick) called earth in a time when the serious electric storms and raging volcanoes and poisonous atmosphere are taking a well earmed rest. Now the comet plunges into the earths crust( Comets are massive, and don't bounce) but luckily those daring microbes parachuted to safety before the impact and began to thrive. So talking mathematically, a microscopic chance, multiplied by a microscopic chance, multiplied..It really does go on. No-one, least of all me is saying it is impossilble, but its f*@#ing close.
How about this for an idea thats, er, closer to home. The sun emits a huge solar flare and redioactivity increases and things start happenin. a couple of microbes like the look of each other and decide to give it a go. The other microbes watching them also try this mating thing and pretty soon everones at it. Then we get amino acids..."Life will find a way" - jurassic park, probably the only clever thing said in the whole movie.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just place holders for what we are trying to figure out, who know what it really is,

yeah, i'll go with this too, but I'm still quite taken with the god idea being the hidden mass ::

[/size]

To the people near the beginning of this post that said that dark matter could be used as a weapon and that it takes up so much of the universe that it wouldn't be a problem, I think there would be a problem, it would be connected to oil, people back in the old days thought that they could use oil for many things and there wouldn't be a problem because there was so much of it, well look at where we are today, oil is messing up our world and we have a shortage of it yet we likely would't suvive without it. The main thing from this is that even though there may be a universe full of it it WILL run out eventually (unless it can renew itself).