Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Dinosaurs Done In By... Dark Matter?

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the mysterious-forces dept.

Science 135

bmahersciwriter writes "Theoretical physicists propose that the Sun periodically crosses into a dense layer of dark matter sandwiching the Milky Way. The gravitational push and pull that this creates disturbs debris in the Oort cloud sending deadly comets and asteroids ricocheting around the solar system. This passage happens, their admittedly speculative model suggests, every 35 million years, which jibes somewhat with evidence on impact craters. Take it with a dino-sized grain of salt."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

they just keep pulling shit out of their asses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431581)

o yea...fuck beta

Re:they just keep pulling shit out of their asses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431683)

A small pocket of dark matter crossed Slashdot headquarters and then beta was born.

magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431603)

These explanations sound like god did it to me, unless we can somehow detect the cloud of matter.

Re:magic (2, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 9 months ago | (#46431673)

Remember folks:
Dark Mater is a THEORETICAL stuff that weighs a lot or is all over the place to explain why entire solar systems don't fly out of the Galaxy as they spin.

What if there was no Dark matter and Gravity could distorts time in a way that would explain it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Re:magic (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#46431813)

Remember folks:
Dark Mater is a THEORETICAL stuff that weighs a lot or is all over the place to explain why entire solar systems don't fly out of the Galaxy as they spin.

Yes, we know. Who said it wasn't theoretical? In case you missed the first three words of the summary: "Theoretical physicists propose..."

What if there was no Dark matter and Gravity could distorts time in a way that would explain it all.

Aaand what if gravity doesn't do that?

Re:magic (4, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#46431939)

My understanding of the English language isn't complete, but I understood "theoretical physicists" to mean that the physicists themselves were only theoretical -- in much the same way that "garden gnome" is a gnome that lives in a garden.

Re:magic (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#46432397)

I darn well stubbed my toe on *something* when I staggered home last night, so I'm pretty sure the garden gnome is not theoretical.

Re:magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432489)

Maybe the missing dark matter is hiding in your garden.

Re:magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432845)

Maybe the missing dark matter is hiding in your garden

The dark matter couldn't be "missing", or else GP's toes wouldn't have been "stubbed".

Re:magic (5, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 9 months ago | (#46432289)

I have found you can increase gravity locally by slamming down a 12 pack of beer. From this I can deduce that in order to stay together, the galaxies must be totally hammered...

Re:magic (4, Funny)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 9 months ago | (#46432389)

...in case you missed the first three words of the summary: "Theoretical physicists propose..."

I prefer to get my physics from physicists that actually exist, thanks.

Re:magic (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#46432081)

Everything is science is "theoretical", that doesn't mean it's unlikely to be true.

Dark matter explains both galaxy rotation and the behavior of the early universe quite well. Until the CMBR data, dark matter was just one hypothesis among many for galaxy rotation, but only dark matter explained the observed pattern of mass distribution when the universe cooled enough to become transparent for the first time. And the numbers matched to a couple of significant digits, not in some hand-wavey way.

What dark matter is made of is still an open question, but it's pretty clear that about 4/5ths of the matter in the universe is dark.

Re:magic (-1, Troll)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 9 months ago | (#46432461)

Dark matter and dark energy are, thus far, both cop-outs.

And totally non-science, so far.

Any more than the 1800s idea of ether or the pre-Coperinus idea of the solar system or the Greek "4 elements" (fire, air, water, rock).

There is no evidence for dark matter or dark energy and many other things like Hawking radiation for that matter or super-symmetry --- we have had many ideas that "explain things well" --- and were totally wrong.

If dark matter is obvious, then why is there dark energy too? Something is not right if 2 unknown factors with no evidence have to be shoe-horned into the cosmos to explain it.

Re:magic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432685)

It's not non science. Perhaps you should read "dark" as "unknown" instead. It's unknown energy, and unknown matter. It's just a place holder for something we don't yet understand. The scientists are fully aware it is something they don't understand. So they're not just making shit up.

Re:magic (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | about 9 months ago | (#46432749)

Rubbish.

There is considerable observational evidence for both.

Re:magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46433365)

On the contrary. The only evidence we have is that it cannot yet be observed. Thus the moniker of being dark.

Re:magic (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 9 months ago | (#46433269)

Matter is just really dense energy. E=MC^2 and all that

Re:magic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46433159)

No, science is something that can be reproduced and proven. Stuff like this and climate change is pseudoscience, true or not, its not real science till it can re reproduced.

Articles like this are so stupid because 1. none of it can be proven or disproven, and 2. who cares? it has no importance on anything. Just some made up stuff that some scientist has to write to keep getting funding.

Re:magic (5, Informative)

StevenMaurer (115071) | about 9 months ago | (#46432415)

Dark matter is not THEORETICAL. There is direct evidence for it. Quoting from the relevant wiki:

The most direct observational evidence to date for dark matter is in a system known as the Bullet Cluster. In most regions of the universe, dark matter and visible material are found together,[33] as expected because of their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Cluster, a collision between two galaxy clusters appears to have caused a separation of dark matter and baryonic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the baryonic matter (in the form of 107–108 Kelvin[34] gas, or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of the system. Electromagnetic interactions between passing gas particles caused them to slow down and settle near the point of impact. However, weak gravitational lensing observations of the same system show that much of the mass resides outside of the central region of baryonic gas.

In other words, gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of matter - shows a region where there is matter that is clearly non-baryonic (i.e. does not interact with the electromagnetic field, a.k.a. "dark"). This is not subject to dispute. The question of what, exactly, is dark matter - is indeed still a subject of scientific research. There are, however, a number of super-symmetric theories which posit super-partners for well known particles, the most stable of which turn out to have the exact characteristics we're noting observationally. It is important to note that these theories were not tailored to account for the dark matter, but seem to fit the observational evidence quite well so far. As with all science however, theories are subject to falsification at any times as soon as new evidence comes on the scene.

Re:magic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432727)

gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of warped space

FTFY

This is not subject to dispute

It damn well is!

Re:magic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431861)

Those heathen dinosaurs didn't worship Jeebus hard enough and GOD smote them for their insolence.

Re:magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432287)

Worse than that, it turns out the real culprits were a couple of dinos, Andrew and William, who had a thing for each other, smitten, you might say, and ripe for smiting; because they were "making it" with each other, like, making the back with two beasts...or something. Anyway, it was all covered by a Tyrannosaurus Badbreathus named Pattus Robertsonii on his nightly "Spreading Tree Ferns with Pattus" show. All their San Andreas' fault, he claimed. Now here we are, their descendants, stuck in the middle of the same La Brea Arm Pits of Ignorance...again.

Re:magic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432443)

One cloaca is as good as any other.

Re:magic (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 9 months ago | (#46432313)

Personally, I was gonna blame the Big Bang. If you're going to make an absurd connection, take. it. all. the. way.

Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (5, Funny)

fullmetal55 (698310) | about 9 months ago | (#46431619)

GO!
seriously how long until someone claims that this happens every 35 million years and the clock is ticking down to Nov 10, 2016.

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (3, Funny)

DrPBacon (3044515) | about 9 months ago | (#46431641)

But have you looked at the numbers? All the numbers?! They add up!

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 9 months ago | (#46431761)

To another number! It's numbers all the way down!! :)

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431947)

HalfLife 3 Confirmed!

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

zentigger (203922) | about 9 months ago | (#46431753)

It's actually Sept, 8, 2014, but that's a simple enough mistake for an amateur.

Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (3)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 9 months ago | (#46431815)

Both of you are wrong. Supercomputer modeling and number dowsing have conclusively proven that the perturbation will cause an E.L.E. boloid strike exactly matching the Mayan prophecy of doom on December 23rd, 2012. They knew this sacred knowledge because they could astral travel using advanced alien technology and actually SEE the dark matter vortex waves.

Just wait and see.

Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#46431945)

None of this will matter. Planet X will have reached us long before then.

Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

lazy genes (741633) | about 9 months ago | (#46432347)

Planet X is what happens when systems like the ort cloud or the asteroid belt clump up. There is mathematical proof that these systems will clump together into a large mass and then separate.

Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46433059)

None of this will matter. Planet X will have reached us long before then.

That would be Planet IX; Pluto has been demoted.

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#46432423)

I'm pretty sure it was Jan 20 2009.

Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 9 months ago | (#46431801)

Are the articles British?

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#46432413)

Crap. Now I'm embarrassed to say that was my first thought on reading the article. I actually looked up the wiki for galactic year.

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | about 9 months ago | (#46432709)

hold on, my Pastor is on the line right now

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432947)

GO! seriously how long until someone claims that this happens every 35 million years and the clock is ticking down to Nov 10, 2016.

That's the missing equation! It's going to happen on March 14th, 2014. (3/14/15).

Re:Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46433071)

Erkk! March 14th, 2015

Statistical analysis of craters (4, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 9 months ago | (#46431625)

I understand why they're getting a weak signal here on Earth, where most craters will have long since been erased by erosion and surface remodeling. But I'll bet we could get a much stronger signal from the Moon, particularly the far side. Do we have the ability to get dates for craters there from orbiting probes, or is that something we'd have to collect physical samples to do?

Re:Statistical analysis of craters (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#46431675)

IIRC you can estimate crater age by counting the # of smaller craters/area and using statistics.

Re:Statistical analysis of craters (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 9 months ago | (#46431693)

Okay, makes sense. So we probably already have the data available to do a pretty good analysis of impact periodicity.

Re:Statistical analysis of craters (3, Informative)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#46431719)

Of course, if their hypothesis is correct all the statistical data will have to be re-calibrated to account for the occasional rain of meteors.

Also note: Age estimates for larger impacts will have smaller error bars.

Re:Statistical analysis of craters (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 9 months ago | (#46432211)

Urgh. Good point.

I'll bet there's a model that could take all stuff this into account, and sufficient data to estimate the parameters. But trying to figure out what that would be feels too much like work.

Re:Statistical analysis of craters (1)

narcc (412956) | about 9 months ago | (#46432431)

I remember Richard Muller (Berkeley physicist) writing something about that in Nemesis: The Death Star (It's a pop-sci book, not science fiction as the title implies.)

Re:Statistical analysis of craters (1)

kenwd0elq (985465) | about 9 months ago | (#46432695)

I was just about to say, "the return of the Nemesis theory", except that "theory" was always too strong a word for that - "conjecture", perhaps.

The idea was that sub-stellar-mass dark companion of the Sun would pass near enough to the Oort cloud to throw a barrage of comets into the inner solar system every 35 million years or so, and that we're just about due. The name of this object would be "Nemesis". (I think Asimov wove that into the end of one of his last stories,,,)

I still like this as a working hypothesis, but I can't really see "dark matter" coming into play - unless the "dark matter" is Jupiter-sized or thereabouts.

flawed (3, Insightful)

another_gopher (1934682) | about 9 months ago | (#46432119)

Except that to do this you first assume uniform distribution of impacts wrt time...

This seems to make a lot of assumptions (1)

jandrese (485) | about 9 months ago | (#46431645)

There seems to be some rather big assumptions being made here, like the nature of dark matter.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (2, Funny)

The123king (2395060) | about 9 months ago | (#46431705)

Or that dark matter actually exists. I've never seen any definitive scientific evidence of the existence of it. Dark matter just seems to be that stuff we use to answer anything we don't quite understand. Big Bang? Dark matter. Quantum physics? Dark matter. Extinction of the dinosaurs? Dark matter. Why is yo mamma so fat? Dark matter.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (4, Informative)

suutar (1860506) | about 9 months ago | (#46431777)

Just remember, dark matter is for explaining why very big things don't fly apart, and dark energy is for explaining why even bigger things do.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432945)

I wonder if dark matter is simply just mass that exists in dimensions that we cannot directly perceive.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 9 months ago | (#46433311)

your not the only one to wonder this...that's kinda the idea behind string theory...

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431791)

Dark Matter Denier!

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432057)

Dark matter deniers? Dark matter did it.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 9 months ago | (#46432259)

Some string theorists claim that when a string bends in the 4th dimension it creates the effects of dark matter.

Not to sound like an idiot because I have no physics degree, but if it exists everywhere why isn't it on Earth or anywhere else? Surely in the last billion years since our solar system revolved around the galaxy once we would at least encounter some of it?

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 9 months ago | (#46432439)

We do. There was a good analysis by somebody I read once looking at how much dark matter you'd expect to find in the solar system. It's not much. Space is really big, and dark matter is pretty well spread around. That's why it doesn't perturb the orbits of the planets noticeably. It also interacts with matter very little, so it's hard to detect.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 9 months ago | (#46432731)

when a string bends in the 4th dimension it creates the effects of dark matter.

. . . but only if there is someone there in the 4th dimension to hear it.

Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432557)

Every reality-motivated explanation begins as a convenient way to to explain something not presently understood. Photoelectric effect not making sense with classical E&M? Hmmm, what if light came in discrete packets.

Dark matter was at the stage you seem to think it's at around 1960: "Hmmm, it would be convenient if there were more mass where we can't see it..." Starting from the Bullet Cluster, we have observed nearly a dozen galactic cluster collisions where the stars and dark matter pass right by/through each other, but the gas can't so it stops in the middle and is then observed falling back towards the opposite galaxy from the one where it originated as they fly by. Gravitational microlensing maps independently draw bullseyes of matter density exactly on the galaxies.

Dark matter's existence is far past the "convenient hypothesis" stage. In fact it's about the only remaining one since gravitational lensing maps have more or less completely ruled out the MOND alternative. That, and the fact that the so-called "WIMP Miracle" suggests that the dark matter particles will have a mass in the correct range to cancel quantum corrections that gives the Higgs its observed mass means we have very good reason to believe it exists.

No, this is the real reason... (4, Funny)

ArcadeNut (85398) | about 9 months ago | (#46431665)

Real Reason [hubimg.com]

Re:No, this is the real reason... (2)

The123king (2395060) | about 9 months ago | (#46431711)

Strangely that's more believable.

I come here for the humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432517)

Meemur meemur.

INCORECT (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431715)

I caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs

signed
Fred F.

Academia, we hardly knew ye (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 9 months ago | (#46431755)

In retrospect, I rather regret not leaping on some bizzare and obscure science topic very early on in my career. With my early knowledge of pop-science and fantasy TV, film, and comic books, I could have made big headways in modern cosmology and theoretical physics by now.

Re:Academia, we hardly knew ye (2)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#46432109)

Sure, all you have to do is make numerically accurate predictions of future observations, how hard can that be? Or failing that, just be a String Theorist ...

Re:Academia, we hardly knew ye (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 9 months ago | (#46433457)

It's never too late to start. Unless you've already started, then it's too late.

Give LTS to mate not to Ubuntu Gnome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431769)

Give LTS to mate deskop not to Ubuntu Gnome, ubuntu gnome is "crab" not a real desktop, long live to MATE DESKTOP!

Re:Give LTS to mate not to Ubuntu Gnome (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 9 months ago | (#46432967)

"9 out of 10 Slashdot ACs we surveyed could not tell the difference between UBUNTU GNOME and a dead crab."

the punchline... (3, Funny)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 9 months ago | (#46431797)

obviously, the dark matter came from Uranus

What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46431807)

I guess we just make any ole shit up these days and pass it off as science... If it has "dark" in the title it must be science, LOL! Science needs something to work on!

Look to the geological record (5, Interesting)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 9 months ago | (#46431857)

If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years. Even though there is some give and take, on that timescale it's almost like clockwork. Since this discovery, scientists of many disciplines have been trying to figure out what could be causing it. While I admit that it could be a cosmic coincidence, if not, then somewhere a culprit is lurking. There are also lesser extinction events every 26 - 35 million years.

For more on the 62 million year problem [sfgate.com]

More on mass extinction events in general [wikipedia.org]

Re:Look to the geological record (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 9 months ago | (#46432165)

If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years.

So we have records of about, what, eight thousand mass extinctions? Wow, I had no idea. ;)

Re:Look to the geological record (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 9 months ago | (#46432917)

Or roughly 130 over the last half-trillion years. Consider yourself educated. At least that's what's happens when physics meet geology.

Re:Look to the geological record (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#46432453)

> If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years.

Oddly enough, that works out to 1/4 of a galactic year to three decimal places.

Galactic seasons?

Re:Look to the geological record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432579)

500 billion years?!?!? The age of the universe is estimated to be only 13.8 billion. You must have some kind of fancy time machine, mister.

Re:Look to the geological record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432659)

500 billion years?!?!? The age of the universe is estimated to be only 13.8 billion. You must have some kind of fancy time machine, mister.

Messed up million and billion. It is supposed to say 500 million years, or half a billion. I don't know why so many people confuse those two, but evidently it happens all the time.

Billion rule for nerds:
Billion means GB
Million means MB
That should help. I have yet to see anybody here being unable to tell those two apart.

Re:Look to the geological record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432629)

Either you mistyped million, or you seem to think the universe and the Earth are way, way, way older than they are.

Off-topic: slashboxes (1)

memnock (466995) | about 9 months ago | (#46431865)

Are these things being obsoleted? The most discussed and hot comments boxes haven't been updated in a week or two. Is the beta rollout still happening?

Something's afoot (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 9 months ago | (#46431875)

Yesterday, a story about upskirt photos being legal in Massachusetts and today dark matter killing off the dinosaurs.

Coincidence? I think not.

You know, it's amazing the insights that a few Friday afternoon cocktails can bring.

Add in Li'l Boosie getting released from prison today, and you can't tell me the Illuminati isn't behind all this. Maybe.

Re:Something's afoot (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 9 months ago | (#46433003)

We had nothing to do with Li'l Boosie getting out! Word of honour.

(He was actually released on Wednesday, BTW.)

Re:Something's afoot (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 9 months ago | (#46433039)

(He was actually released on Wednesday, BTW.)

You'd like us to believe that, wouldn't you?

Dark Matter: Dr. Evil's next great plot (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 9 months ago | (#46431907)

Sharks with lasers on their heads is so 20th century.

Nothing "real" to be explained here (2)

murphtall (1979734) | about 9 months ago | (#46431999)

LOL From TFA.... "Dissipative dark matter is a possible explanation, but it’s not clear that it’s explaining anything real"

Dark matter? (1, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 9 months ago | (#46432041)

I'm not a physicist but every description I've heard of dark matter more or less boils down to "we've noticed there is more gravity in areas where we don't see mass. And since only mass can generate gravity we have missing mass. We're going to call that missing mass dark matter."

Okay... fine... but that's entirely theoretical. No one has actually found dark matter... as in put it under a microscope or touched it. So... until then, lets not come up with any halfassed theories regarding it.

Re:Dark matter? (0)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#46432133)

Okay... fine... but that's entirely theoretical.

Right, like all of science.

No one has actually found dark matter... as in put it under a microscope or touched it

Right, like all of cosmology.

There's solid evidence for the existence of dark matter - it's composition remains a mystery as early hypotheses aren't panning out.

What I don't get is why anyone would think Dark Matter would form layers above and below the galactic disk. Hard to see why the distribution about the galaxy would be anything but spherical.

Re:Dark matter? (2)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 9 months ago | (#46432335)

It would seem to follow that dark matter would tend to naturally form some type of structure. Normal matter certainly forms rather consistent shapes on many different scales. What shapes would dark matter favor if it only interacts gravitationally? Wouldn't it form either a dense ball at the bottom of our galactic gravity well, or flatten into a disc with the rest of the matter in our galaxy? I don't think I've ever read any real theories on it.

Re:Dark matter? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 9 months ago | (#46432459)

Both matter concentrating in the middle and forming disks is due to it interacting with itself. Friction, basically. Dark matter doesn't do that.

That's silly (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 9 months ago | (#46432293)

Everybody knows that it was Nibiru.

And scientists done in by ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432329)

cannabis ?

fuuck (1)

strstr (539330) | about 9 months ago | (#46432427)

I believe this is real. It's on one of those other god like astro physics levels of things, that people don't understand. Like mind control, and directed-energy weapons. People don't understand shit about the universe, how cold it is, or how fucking dangerous and volatile it is ..

I think we should ditch planet earth now and focus on building an artificial planetary system which can avoid other planets, comets, energy, and other uncontrollable systems. Immediately, as soon as we can, before we ourselves parish.

Learn about mind control and directed-energy here: http://www.oregonstatehospital... [oregonstatehospital.net]

Space bees (2)

petsounds (593538) | about 9 months ago | (#46432479)

"So what if there was this giant swarm of space bees, and every 35 million years our solar system–"
"Wait. Wait, hold on. You're suggesting space bees killed the dinosaurs?"
"Not directly! These bees are huge. Moon-sized. And they live in the interstellar gaps between stars. I calculated that if their swarm passes through the Oort Cloud, they would get really upset and buzz around, and their gravitational forces would fling asteroids and comets into the solar system."
"How did you calculate that the Oort Cloud makes your hypothetical space bees angry?"
"Well it's a lot more plausible than your hypothetical invisible aether making the sun go wonky."

a bit of a flaw with this (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#46432487)

There's a flaw I see here. When the solar system was formed, chunks of stuff flew around in random directions and collided and there's X chance that one hits Earth. So something comes along and alters the trajectory/orbits of some of this stuff, also randomly. The probability that one hits Earth does not go up. You took something random and made it differently random. For this to be true, the vast majority of matter would regularly have to have magically been specifically not on a trajectory to eventually hit Earth ever. That simply isn't true.

Linking Extinction To Location In Galaxy (2)

zugedneb (601299) | about 9 months ago | (#46432717)

Linking Mass Extinctions To the Sun's Journey In the Milky Way
http://slashdot.org/story/1919... [slashdot.org]

this post might be of interest...

Dinusaur-sized grain of salt but... (1)

Moppusan (2837753) | about 9 months ago | (#46432823)

Which Dinosaur? There were lots of sizes! I need to quantify this immediately or my brain will turn into dark matter! Get it? Grey matter, dark matter...Laugh or I'll turn this solar system around and we'll go right back to the dark matter.

"Dark matter" is bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432855)

There are lots of things we can not see in space simply because there is not enough energy or light. "Dark matter" is likely regular matter than is not emitting light. Big deal.

Re:"Dark matter" is bullshit (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 9 months ago | (#46433323)

it neither emits radiation or reflects it, so to our current tech it's mostly undetectable directly, although we can measure the effects it has on normal matter.

Why can't dark matter kill beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46432935)

Fuck beta. Seriously. Get rid of slashdot beta.
Wish dark matter would squish beta into oblivion.

Not new (1)

BigBadBus (653823) | about 9 months ago | (#46433013)

Apart from the mention of Dark Matter, which seems to be a perennial favourite these days, this theory is not new. It was first proposed c.1986 at least.

UFOs (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 9 months ago | (#46433281)

Dark matter is like the UFOs of astronomy. It's only called "dark" because they don't know what it is yet! UFOs are only "unidentified" until they identify the flying object. There's no reason to think that "dark matter" is something mysterious or alien, astronomers just can't see it...because it doesn't glow!

So when we go extinct, who will take over? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46433425)

A bunch of cockroach humanoids?

Attention all Weyrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46433473)

Quick, we need to genetically engineer some dragons and riders to deal with this threat...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?