Rlynn, you look and write almost exactly like my ex. Surreal.

"we can't even see planets, much less an asteriod "

An asteroid can't be seen, true, unless when it's got very close, but steroids can be seen purchased by many a body-builder.

And I wonder how much Fred Astair's ego has been involved in naming those rocks asteroids. I read his autobiography, written by his ghost writer, ten years after his death (so, yet another evidence for the existence of soul stuff), and it mentioned he was an amateur astronomer.

Massagetrade, thank you for your measured and very correct answer.

I mused about the dark matter-soul stuff inseparableness, coz for the longest time I was trying to do some experiments on the weight loss at death. Which is actually mass loss at our altitude.

I bought two gold fish, or maybe guppies, I remember resenting paying $2.33 incl. tax for them, and put them on a scale in an air-tight container, a pill bottle.

The scale's max was 50 gram, and it measured differences in .1 gram units.

I tried to see if the 21 gram human weight loss can be replicated.

I even tried to predict weight loss due to cell death, and weight loss due to the organism's death, which, since it was a verterbrate, with a central nervous system, it would have occurred at an earlier time to cell death.

Then I watched the two fish die, and my heart almost broke in two. I knew they were suffering, and I felt guilt galore. It was a bad day for science everwhere.

Eventually the scale showed a difference of .1 gram, after the death. The original weight was something like 45.3 grams, and the final weight, 45.2 grams.

At first I thought this was significant, since 21 grams is about .4 percent of a human's mass, so .1 gram of 54 grams is .2 percent. But then I gave my head a shake: the scale's gradation was .1 gram, and a difference in the scale's display at the minimum gradation means nothing. All it means is that it is less than .05 grams, if rounding was at half a gradation. That's so, coz if the rounding happened at .05 grams to the next up, then a difference of .1 grams could have been in reality even the difference between 0.049 grams and 0.051 grams, which is 0.02 grams; or it could have been the diffence in real terms of what's between 0.0499999 and 0.05, which translates to a real differnce in mass of 0.0000001, which can be explained by a small drop of water evaporating, or the same 0.01 change could have been shown by a difference of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 grams of mass, which is like seven water molecules. In other words, all three real losses would have shown as a difference of 0.1 grams on the scale.

So I was not satisfied, and wanted to repeat the experiment, with different conditions, but it is hard to find with my means a scale with more than three significant digits of accuracy, so I dropped the idea. Plus I could not live through witnessing the suffocation death of another animal, knowing I caused it. (It sounds like I want to look good for the chicks here, but it really saddened me to see those animals die a horrible death.)

And rlynn looks exactly like my first wife, too. (I actually have never been married. And the statement is still true.)

Rlynne, thanks for the read suggestion. Unfortunately I can't read, that long stuff anyway. I have a very bad impatience for reading material. I can't stand fillers. Most new theory can be explained in a magazine article, and if the theorist writes a book about it, you can be damned sure it's either watered or dumbed down, or it's full of totally unnecessary words upon words, that are there only to fill up a whole book.

That's one. The other one is that I like to come up with theories on my own, I don't like to read others'. It's slower to gain knowledge this way, but much more fun, and I enjoy it. Right now I am working on a physical creation of a bicycle steering bar made of wood, and with a spring-loaded system, which will take off weight from the bike, seeing that wood is much ligher than metal; and it will reduce my arthritic pain in my hands and fingers, since it will reduce the constant shaking and rattling, what with Ontario roads and stuff. They ice up here in the winter, and there are always lots of cracks in the asphalt pavement, that make the steering bar rattle. I think I will eventually expand the idea if it works, to build a bike out of almost all wood sticks, except the wheels and the pedal/gear/gearshift/break/wheel mechanisms.

If anyone of you likes this idea, making wooden frames and seat posts and steering mechanisms for bikes, and wants to steal it from me and make a commercial venture of it, please be my guest, I don't need the money, I am okay. Not rich, poor actually, but it's a lot of work and unpleasant hustle to make money with selling inventions, so I just do them for myself, and give the ideas away for free, anyone can grab them. I decided that I will die poor, there is no point in struggling against that, and I decided to have fun creating fun stuff, instead of sweating bricks trying to market them or secure venture capital or patent them... it's easy to patent things, but it's not easy to deal with my local patent office, they are goons.

How perceptive you are. I did measure and correct my response to Rlynne's presence.









Yes! Theres the rub. I'm given to believe that even changes in vibration (a truck driving by outside) could cause a the LSD of a scale like that to change, if the actual mass is close boundary of the two numbers.




You have a big heart, and any woman would be lucky to have you.



OMG my ex is your 1st wife!

Matter can be converted to energy by E=MC**2. If the entire universe (as we know it) was converted to energy mathematically, the percentages represented by the noted types are represented on the pie chart. Matter, represents a small fraction of what exits and dark energy represents a huge portion.

All the textbooks that say the universe is made up of matter are wrong.

I detect some electromagnet energy here.

A nice graphic describing the expansion of the universe.

As far as dust, asteroids, and comets not being visible, we have a satellite doing just that. Matter is sensitive to infrared.

"PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer has captured a new view of two companion galaxies -- a somewhat tranquil spiral beauty and its rambunctious partner blazing with smoky star formation...

The WISE mission completed its main goal of mapping the sky in infrared light in October 2010, covering it one-and-one-half times before its frozen coolant ran out, as planned. During that time, it snapped pictures of hundreds of millions of objects, the first batch of which will be released to the astronomy community in April 2011. WISE is continuing its scan of the skies without coolant using two of its four infrared channels -- the two shorter-wavelength channels not affected by the warmer temperatures. The mission's ongoing survey is now focused primarily on asteroids and comets.

Because WISE has imaged the entire sky, it excels at producing large mosaics like this new picture of Messier 81 and Messier 82, which covers a patch of sky equivalent to three-by-three full moons, or 1.5 by 1.5 degrees.



Gas, (unassociated atoms and molecules)and dust (small pieces of matter where the atoms and molecules are attached to each other) are all affected by light (electromagnetic radiation) as their electromagnetic fields reflect, absorb, refract, etc., in space just like they do here on earth.

Infrared light has the ability to pass through dust without being absorbed or reflected. Now, with the aid of infrared detecting equipment like WISE we can see through the dust surrounding the core of the Milky Way. This is in deep contrast to dark matter where the light just passes through unaffected.

Homemade bamboo bicycles are in fashion amongst a teeny subculture these days. A friend of mine in austin in doing so right now.

this is for message and metal,(and anyone else that's interested) i saw this and thought you might like it

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2I2bCs/www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/01/galaxy-x-is-orbiting-the-milky-way.html

it talks of a dark matter galaxy orbiting the milky way....

Thanks, Moe.

Thanks Moe,

It would seem to be easier to study some other sprial galaxy where the core disc isn't blocking the view.

Nice set of articles. As with most of the other stuff I have read it makes many assumptions.

WISE might be able to see rocks and stuff in our local stellar environment (perhaps as far a Saturn). However it is useless for 'seeing' those objects beyond that.

Why? Because at the range of even a light year the gravational 'lensing' of such objects 'bends' both light and other frequencies within the EM spectrum (i.e. infared). Such 'bending' combined with the small size (relative) of these objects would make them effectively invisible (i.e. 'dark') to our puny devices.

NASA, JPL and most other groups that release images to the public are quite found of things like 'false color' images. (take an image, assign colors by a computer program to various aspects of it, release it to the public with 'explanation' of your assumptions)... 'false color' equals 'false assumption'.

I submit to you that there might be 'terrain' between us and the nearest stars that is full of objects ranging from fields of free floating small objects (asteriods) to even small systems of 'moon' size object orbiting'Jupiter' size gas giants and possibly even 'mini-proto-stars' and we would not see even one such object with our current technology.

Proof - math exists that postulates the existance of a vast field of objects outside our suns 'influence' zone...

The so-called 'Oort Cloud'. However, as yet, I have seen no evidence such a 'cloud' exists. Yet my own small knowledge indicates to me it must...

If such things exist mankind would not 'jump' to the stars, rather we would 'hop' from 'terrain feature' to 'terrain feature.

Simply because the idea does not fit 'current' acceptable 'views' of what constitutes 'space' is not a reason for so quickly dismissing it using 'science' that is 'accepted' by many but based actually upon assumptions.

I reckon the 'proof' of what I submitt will come when the day arrives that a 'starship' launches from earth with great fanfare...

and 'stumbles upon' the first of such 'terrain' features.