View Full Version : Discussion: Unlocking the Secrets of Dwarf ...

2003-Jul-24, 03:45 AM
SUMMARY: A team of astronomers from the University of Cambridge have been researching a rare group of galaxies, known as dwarf spheroidal galaxies, which seem to have few stars but massive amounts of "dark matter". The team analyzed one such galaxy and found that the stars in the outer edges were moving so quickly that the galaxy could only stay together if it had 100 times more dark matter than the mass of the stars alone. This research will help astronomers understand how galaxies are formed and how dark matter plays into their composition.

Comments or questions about this story? Feel free to share your thoughts.

2003-Jul-25, 05:36 AM
Hey Fraser. I wanted to apologize for my possibly inflammatory remarks regarding dark matter/energy. I also wanted to thank you for the marvelous service you provide to all of us who don't have the time or the resources to go finding all this stuff on our own. My remarks may have sounded inflammatory, but I will stick by the content. For those of you reading this and have no idea what I'm talking about, read this (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=343). I would also like to calmly explain my position toward dark matter and the like more adequately.

First of all, if the Universe were only 6000 years old, as I hold it to be, then dark matter and energy would be unnecessary to hold the galaxy together. I would also like vanderL, who commented on the thread (I remember the word now) linked above, to explain why he believes the Creation model of the Universe "doesn't stick." I will post the request on that thread as well. The 6000 year estimate is based on my belief in the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16,17), but that is a discussion for another time. For those of you who don't believe in God's Word, a more suitable estimate for the age of the Universe could be around 10,000 years based on observable evidence (another discussion for another time).

Since no dark matter particles have been observed in any setting, I believe they do not exist. One might compare them to the wind, in that you cannot see the wind, but you can certainly feel its effects. Yes, but one can also say the same thing about God (Romans 1:20). They can also say it about the graviton. No graviton has ever been observed, but the effects of gravity are very noticeable. Just because a graviton has not been observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. True. That is not the only reason why I doubt dark matter's existence, however.

How it was "discovered" is in doubt. Dark matter/energy is only a theory, and, therefore, we should treat it as such. But it is a theory to explain the longevity of the Universe. If the Universe were believed to be young, then this dark matter theory would never have been thought of. You see, if the Universe were old, galaxies would spin apart and clusters would spread out much faster than they are now without something there keeping it together. By current scientific estimates, should dark matter not exist, there would be nothing in the form of a galaxy left. (Which brings a doubt to the highly lauded Big Bang theory, but that's yet another discussion for another time.) Dark matter is the glue holding everything in place for eons past and eons to come, according to the current model of our origins.

Because of the coherence of these dwarf galaxies, astronomers assume a lot of dark matter resides there. If the stars in the observed galaxy were only moving for 6000 years, then they would not have had the time to break apart the galaxy. "The team analyzed one such galaxy and found that the stars in the outer edges were moving so quickly that the galaxy could only stay together if it had 100 times more dark matter than the mass of the stars alone," to quote Fraser. That's assuming the Universe is billions of years old. Six thousand years is not enough time for that galaxy to break up if it were created at that point with everything else.

You see, the only way anyone will convince me of an eons old Universe is to prove the existence of dark matter or energy by direct observation. If I had a choice between God's inspired Word and man's imperfect theories, I'd go with God. For those of you who have read Carl Sagan's book, Contact, I assure you, I am no Billy Jo Rankin or Palmer Joss. Mr. Rankin did not base his beliefs on knowledge (Romans 10:2), only on blind faith (Hebrews 11:1, emphasis on words "substance," and "evidence" in that verse). Mr. Joss, on the other hand, was willing to compromise God's Holy Word for the new, imperfect theories man (or woman) was putting forth. If you want to read about real Evolutionists, would you go to a Creationist to explain them to you? No, you wouldn't. I encourage you to read about Creationists from people who are Creationists. I encourage you to go to Apologetics Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org) in order to get a better idea of what we stand for in the scientific community. The site does not answer every question there is out there, but I'm sure if you were to email them, that they will try to answer your questions post haste.

And now I shall get off my soap box.

2003-Jul-25, 05:45 AM
As long as you follow my simple rule (be respectful to this community), I'm happy to have you disagree with the theory of dark energy and dark matter. They're just theories, and lots of scientists are gunning for them too.

That said, I'm personally not really interested in getting into a Evolution/Creation debate. I'm entirely biased towards the scientific point of view. But I'm sure other readers would be happy to debate it with you endlessly.