SPQR, your reference to me when I had not previously posted in this thread is telling.

Last paragraph: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12604#218282

Which part of "science is never settled and it is certainly not absolute" do you not understand?

Besides, if you knew anything about E = mc^2, you would know about the *assumptions* Einstein was making.

You clearly have not got a clue.

arjay..""Perhaps we can now travel back in time""

yeah aint that little tidbit
the media just threw in..an interesting destraction

as if..the facts wernt amasing enough..by them/selves..they had to sex..the story..up into delusion

no doudt..they mean on the astral level
where light[photon]..takes billions of years to reach earth
[and the so called back/ground noise...no doudt preceeds..the specific photons arrival here]

we could eventually predict..[via better science]
by making sense of..the meaning..of all that 'random noise'

predict that../mere photons..only moving
at the speed of light..eventually will..reveal
to our limited vision

as..to going..back
lol..in time...

""to 1913..and stop Pres Woodrow Wilson
from giving..the powers of money creation to the US Federal Reserve.""

that ship has sailed

we might feel/believe..we can predict the outcome
but how many times..has the expert market..got that wrong..too

no bailout..has fixed the systematic errors of greed
every bank ever formed..has eventually 'lost'..all the savings
muggins..put into the bankers trust..

time-travel..is a dream
predicting..what the photons..will in time..*reveal
is practical..[soonish]

once..we begin using our smarts..for good
to explain that..we currently can only guess about..or re-act to

and stop treating..cetain people
as godheads..cause they got clever spin/formula
press or control..the weight of opinion or the media
or the peer re-vieuw..or the patent

to refute that spin..for the carbon tax
needs someone to finance it..then be brave enough
*to publisise it

and that's..not going to be allowed to happen

for now..its enough..that we have proved
what-ever..the facts end up proving

we for now..we..must seek to regain..*more truth
into this reality..the time of theory
being sold as fact..must end..soon.

lets face it..*dark/matter
is simply..the generic lable
for something..that science says..*MUST be there
but they cant find-out..what it is..lol..yet*

so we say dark/matter
just like we say..*evolution
and that..the secret to life..{and all that}..=..42

anything..to stop us questioning
all..the other santa/clause fictions..they sold to us..as kids

if only this key/event
helped other..key events..
that could happen

if only people dared to say..
PLEASE EXPLAIN*...it in plain speak

in your own words
..and if a child
dont get it..!

*its spin..!

Oh well, let’s talk about dark matter.

What keeps the planets orbiting the sun? Why don’t they just fly off into space?

The answer, we know today, is gravity.

In the case of the solar system it’s fairly easy to understand. Most of the matter in the solar system is concentrated in the sun. As a first approximation we can ignore the mutual attraction of the planets for each other or the attraction between the planets and the sun. We can treat the sun as a fixed object to which the planets are gravitationally bound.

The eccentric and personally very unpleasant physicist, Fritz Zwicky(1), was the first to understand that for galaxies and galactic clusters the situation is not so simple. Zwicky calculated the total visible mass of the Coma Galaxy Cluster and concluded there was not enough mass to hold it together. By rights the individual galaxies should be flying off in all directions just as the planets would if we switched off the sun’s gravity.

Zwicky concluded that most of the mass in the cluster must be “dark” – ie not visible through a telescope.

Later calculations showed that even within individual galaxies there does not appear to be enough mass to hold them together. The individual stars should be flying off.

So what is holding the galaxies and galactic clusters together if not dark matter? I don’t know. I’m agnostic. Perhaps there is some weird property of the fabric of space-time we don’t understand.

However I would have to say that, given what we know as of today, some sort of dark matter seems to be the most likely answer.

The science is NOT settled. However anyone who wants to dismiss the dark matter explanation needs to come up with an alternative source for the forces that are holding galaxies together.

Anyone want to give it a try?

This could be the stuff of Nobel prizes.

Zwicki’s daughter, Barabrina, thinks her father gets a bum rap. She says he was not really such an unpleasant chap.

See:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/30-the-father-of-dark-matter-still-gets-no-respect

(1) Wikipedia on Zwicky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

@ Stevenlmeyer:

<<anyone who “suggests otherwise” without addressing the reasons why most physicists who studied the evidence concluded nothing can travel faster than light does indeed demonstrate his ignorance>>

Totally irrelevant. It matters not what the reasons were.The point is that up until recently there was no challenge to *faith* that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Now, evidence is emerging to the contrary--and the CERN finding is not the only source.

@ Bonmot
<< Which part of "science is never settled and it is certainly not absolute" do you not understand?>>

Err, perhaps this part: You trying to aid & comfort a fellow traveler who was being grilled for asserting that a recent extreme weather event was indubitable evidence of AGW.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513#196168

You can't run the with foxes and hunt with the hounds --leastways , it was thought impossible till you showed it wasn't!

Perhaps you should read that whole thread again, petal.

Here's the proof:

The barman says "Sorry, we don't serve neutrinos in this bar"

A neutrino walks into a bar.