<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_008213</id>
	<title>Possible Dark Matter Signs At the Core</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257337140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Scientific American has a piece on speculation that <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fermi-haze&amp;print=true">dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center</a>. Beginning in 2003, researchers led by Douglas Finkbeiner noticed a curious excess of microwave radiation in the WMAP data, after all known sources of such radiation were accounted for. Data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope resulted in a similar anomaly in gamma rays. <i>"A paper posted to the physics preprint Web site arXiv.org on October 26 and submitted to the Astrophysical Journal points to <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4583">a possible signature of dark matter in the Milky Way</a>, although the study's authors are careful to keep their observations empirical and table such speculation... In the new paper [the researchers] describe the Fermi gamma-ray haze and make the claim that it confirms the synchrotron origin of the WMAP microwave haze. And as with the microwave haze, the authors argue that the electrons responsible for the gamma-ray haze appear to originate from an unknown astrophysical process. ... 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,' [one of them] says."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientific American has a piece on speculation that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center .
Beginning in 2003 , researchers led by Douglas Finkbeiner noticed a curious excess of microwave radiation in the WMAP data , after all known sources of such radiation were accounted for .
Data from NASA 's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope resulted in a similar anomaly in gamma rays .
" A paper posted to the physics preprint Web site arXiv.org on October 26 and submitted to the Astrophysical Journal points to a possible signature of dark matter in the Milky Way , although the study 's authors are careful to keep their observations empirical and table such speculation... In the new paper [ the researchers ] describe the Fermi gamma-ray haze and make the claim that it confirms the synchrotron origin of the WMAP microwave haze .
And as with the microwave haze , the authors argue that the electrons responsible for the gamma-ray haze appear to originate from an unknown astrophysical process .
... 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics, ' [ one of them ] says .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientific American has a piece on speculation that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center.
Beginning in 2003, researchers led by Douglas Finkbeiner noticed a curious excess of microwave radiation in the WMAP data, after all known sources of such radiation were accounted for.
Data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope resulted in a similar anomaly in gamma rays.
"A paper posted to the physics preprint Web site arXiv.org on October 26 and submitted to the Astrophysical Journal points to a possible signature of dark matter in the Milky Way, although the study's authors are careful to keep their observations empirical and table such speculation... In the new paper [the researchers] describe the Fermi gamma-ray haze and make the claim that it confirms the synchrotron origin of the WMAP microwave haze.
And as with the microwave haze, the authors argue that the electrons responsible for the gamma-ray haze appear to originate from an unknown astrophysical process.
... 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,' [one of them] says.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973204</id>
	<title>It just won't cut it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "Fermi Haze" has rusted my "Occam's Razor," and now I can't cut my "Coulombian Cocaine."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " Fermi Haze " has rusted my " Occam 's Razor , " and now I ca n't cut my " Coulombian Cocaine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "Fermi Haze" has rusted my "Occam's Razor," and now I can't cut my "Coulombian Cocaine.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972032</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257257820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!</p></div></blockquote><p>Dark matter stole my girlfriend and made my dog leave me and Excel print funny!<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it ' of the physics world .
Ca n't explain something , Dark Matter is the reason !
Ca n't find a cause , Dark Matter is it ! Dark matter stole my girlfriend and made my dog leave me and Excel print funny !
         </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world.
Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!
Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!Dark matter stole my girlfriend and made my dog leave me and Excel print funny!
         
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972064</id>
	<title>Outside of the box thinking</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1257258180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now of course the problem with discussing articles by "conventional" astronomers is that they want to limit everything to a "conventional" physical process (i.e. determined by the natural laws of physics).That approach fades once one begins to integrate (a) the age of the universe; (b) the probable evolution timescale for intelligent life; (c) the evolution of intelligent species.  If one simply uses the data from the Lineweaver group -- the probability of intelligent technological civilizations older than ours goes up significantly (most of the potential civilization evolving stars are older than "we" are).  Could not such civilizations choose to communicate with each other using relativistic electrons?  Some of which will not make it but can easily be corrected by ECC.</p><p>Is not the dark matter simply evidence of the existence of Kardshev Type II level civilizations?<br>It is useful to note that physicists still want to insist on explanations that are based in intrinsic laws of physics (read: "I'll invent laws if they do not already exist") rather than the evolution of universe as a whole (one which incorporates physics with chemistry and biology)..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now of course the problem with discussing articles by " conventional " astronomers is that they want to limit everything to a " conventional " physical process ( i.e .
determined by the natural laws of physics ) .That approach fades once one begins to integrate ( a ) the age of the universe ; ( b ) the probable evolution timescale for intelligent life ; ( c ) the evolution of intelligent species .
If one simply uses the data from the Lineweaver group -- the probability of intelligent technological civilizations older than ours goes up significantly ( most of the potential civilization evolving stars are older than " we " are ) .
Could not such civilizations choose to communicate with each other using relativistic electrons ?
Some of which will not make it but can easily be corrected by ECC.Is not the dark matter simply evidence of the existence of Kardshev Type II level civilizations ? It is useful to note that physicists still want to insist on explanations that are based in intrinsic laws of physics ( read : " I 'll invent laws if they do not already exist " ) rather than the evolution of universe as a whole ( one which incorporates physics with chemistry and biology ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now of course the problem with discussing articles by "conventional" astronomers is that they want to limit everything to a "conventional" physical process (i.e.
determined by the natural laws of physics).That approach fades once one begins to integrate (a) the age of the universe; (b) the probable evolution timescale for intelligent life; (c) the evolution of intelligent species.
If one simply uses the data from the Lineweaver group -- the probability of intelligent technological civilizations older than ours goes up significantly (most of the potential civilization evolving stars are older than "we" are).
Could not such civilizations choose to communicate with each other using relativistic electrons?
Some of which will not make it but can easily be corrected by ECC.Is not the dark matter simply evidence of the existence of Kardshev Type II level civilizations?It is useful to note that physicists still want to insist on explanations that are based in intrinsic laws of physics (read: "I'll invent laws if they do not already exist") rather than the evolution of universe as a whole (one which incorporates physics with chemistry and biology)..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490</id>
	<title>It's a black hole!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it's dark matter in the middle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's dark matter in the middle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's dark matter in the middle</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29977450</id>
	<title>They should call it DARK GRAVITY!!!!</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1257001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cause that's the only thing that we really know about it, just a accounted source of gravity, but nobody yet has proved that it is matter. Naming it as matter might be potentially misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause that 's the only thing that we really know about it , just a accounted source of gravity , but nobody yet has proved that it is matter .
Naming it as matter might be potentially misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause that's the only thing that we really know about it, just a accounted source of gravity, but nobody yet has proved that it is matter.
Naming it as matter might be potentially misleading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972534</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but</title>
	<author>hldn</author>
	<datestamp>1257261420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because you're an astrophysics noob and don't realize that blackholes do not explain it at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because you 're an astrophysics noob and do n't realize that blackholes do not explain it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because you're an astrophysics noob and don't realize that blackholes do not explain it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975062</id>
	<title>That is not equivalent</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1256980260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Up to a certain point , all phenomenon we looked at shows essentially a neutral universe. Dark matter and energy were thought up to explain something which could not be explained with our normal theory without, but would neatly fit with a universe being neutral &amp; flat (aka everything going to zero). And thus far it seems to fit. "God did it", does not fit the same type of explanation , as the more we know, the more we see natural process shugging alone without any design whatsoever. It is simply an ad-hoc thrown in belief without any basic of fundamental for it. It is fine for faith and belief, but does not offer any prediction one can falsify. Dark matter and energy actually does that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Up to a certain point , all phenomenon we looked at shows essentially a neutral universe .
Dark matter and energy were thought up to explain something which could not be explained with our normal theory without , but would neatly fit with a universe being neutral &amp; flat ( aka everything going to zero ) .
And thus far it seems to fit .
" God did it " , does not fit the same type of explanation , as the more we know , the more we see natural process shugging alone without any design whatsoever .
It is simply an ad-hoc thrown in belief without any basic of fundamental for it .
It is fine for faith and belief , but does not offer any prediction one can falsify .
Dark matter and energy actually does that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up to a certain point , all phenomenon we looked at shows essentially a neutral universe.
Dark matter and energy were thought up to explain something which could not be explained with our normal theory without, but would neatly fit with a universe being neutral &amp; flat (aka everything going to zero).
And thus far it seems to fit.
"God did it", does not fit the same type of explanation , as the more we know, the more we see natural process shugging alone without any design whatsoever.
It is simply an ad-hoc thrown in belief without any basic of fundamental for it.
It is fine for faith and belief, but does not offer any prediction one can falsify.
Dark matter and energy actually does that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29987110</id>
	<title>Integral Disproves Dark Matter Origin...</title>
	<author>EtaCarinae</author>
	<datestamp>1256989080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems there is a more <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801122552.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">mundane explanation</a> [sciencedaily.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems there is a more mundane explanation [ sciencedaily.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems there is a more mundane explanation [sciencedaily.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29979080</id>
	<title>Nibbler, is that you?</title>
	<author>oracleofbargth</author>
	<datestamp>1257007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of Dark Matter at the galaxy's core?  So they just found the path to the Niblonians' home planet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of Dark Matter at the galaxy 's core ?
So they just found the path to the Niblonians ' home planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of Dark Matter at the galaxy's core?
So they just found the path to the Niblonians' home planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971852</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dark Matter and Dark Energy are like the modern equivalent to Phlogiston.  Either something is wrong with our model or missing from our equations so in order to make the math work we insert a known unknown.  It makes the equations match up with the observations cleanly, but requires us to assume something about the nature of the Universe that just doesn't make sense.  Phlogiston was exactly the same.  We could not explain the bizarre eddies of the outer planets from the perspective of a geocentric system so we introduced unobservable eddies which made the math work because our model was wrong.  Something tells me that we'll eventually work out a more accurate and more elegant model that doesn't include Dark Matter or Dark Energy in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark Matter and Dark Energy are like the modern equivalent to Phlogiston .
Either something is wrong with our model or missing from our equations so in order to make the math work we insert a known unknown .
It makes the equations match up with the observations cleanly , but requires us to assume something about the nature of the Universe that just does n't make sense .
Phlogiston was exactly the same .
We could not explain the bizarre eddies of the outer planets from the perspective of a geocentric system so we introduced unobservable eddies which made the math work because our model was wrong .
Something tells me that we 'll eventually work out a more accurate and more elegant model that does n't include Dark Matter or Dark Energy in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dark Matter and Dark Energy are like the modern equivalent to Phlogiston.
Either something is wrong with our model or missing from our equations so in order to make the math work we insert a known unknown.
It makes the equations match up with the observations cleanly, but requires us to assume something about the nature of the Universe that just doesn't make sense.
Phlogiston was exactly the same.
We could not explain the bizarre eddies of the outer planets from the perspective of a geocentric system so we introduced unobservable eddies which made the math work because our model was wrong.
Something tells me that we'll eventually work out a more accurate and more elegant model that doesn't include Dark Matter or Dark Energy in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29982940</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1257018960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed to to explain what we observe if the models would take into account the 36 orders of magnitude greater electric interaction in addition to gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Ca n't explain Dark Matter , we got Dark Energy !
...Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed to to explain what we observe if the models would take into account the 36 orders of magnitude greater electric interaction in addition to gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy!
...Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed to to explain what we observe if the models would take into account the 36 orders of magnitude greater electric interaction in addition to gravity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972098</id>
	<title>I like my coffee...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257258420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...like I like my cosmological hypotheses.  Dark, with a nice distribution of heat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...like I like my cosmological hypotheses .
Dark , with a nice distribution of heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...like I like my cosmological hypotheses.
Dark, with a nice distribution of heat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972532</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257261420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972522</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because the massive black holes don't adequately explain things.
</p><p>Rotation speeds of stars about the center of the galaxy don't behave as they should in the case where the massive black hole is the only thing acting on them other than nearby bits of galaxy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we keep invoking " dark matter " to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy ? Because the massive black holes do n't adequately explain things .
Rotation speeds of stars about the center of the galaxy do n't behave as they should in the case where the massive black hole is the only thing acting on them other than nearby bits of galaxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?Because the massive black holes don't adequately explain things.
Rotation speeds of stars about the center of the galaxy don't behave as they should in the case where the massive black hole is the only thing acting on them other than nearby bits of galaxy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972322</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is that you have no formal and very little informal training in modern physics.  Am I right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that you have no formal and very little informal training in modern physics .
Am I right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that you have no formal and very little informal training in modern physics.
Am I right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971632</id>
	<title>Re:It's a black hole!</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1257255540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course it's dark matter in the middle</p></div><p>Dark matter is sort of like violence.  If it doesn't work, just use more of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's dark matter in the middleDark matter is sort of like violence .
If it does n't work , just use more of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's dark matter in the middleDark matter is sort of like violence.
If it doesn't work, just use more of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975526</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1256984700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FSM will have issues with this convection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSM will have issues with this convection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSM will have issues with this convection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971478</id>
	<title>One word:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Foreskin Configuration. New in Meatloaf's next generation Linux scheduler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Foreskin Configuration .
New in Meatloaf 's next generation Linux scheduler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foreskin Configuration.
New in Meatloaf's next generation Linux scheduler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975778</id>
	<title>This means nothing</title>
	<author>zero.kalvin</author>
	<datestamp>1256987280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I already read the actual paper, The problem with this, is that there is tons of models which can be fitted to the data. One can find a model which predict these plots, and works perfectly, but it's exactly like looking at the clouds and seeing faces in them. After the preliminarily results from  the Pamela experiment, everyone tried to fit his model to the data. For all we know there other astrophysics model that can explain this without the need to inject dark matter in this.

(Yes I am physicist, and yes I am working on dark matter)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already read the actual paper , The problem with this , is that there is tons of models which can be fitted to the data .
One can find a model which predict these plots , and works perfectly , but it 's exactly like looking at the clouds and seeing faces in them .
After the preliminarily results from the Pamela experiment , everyone tried to fit his model to the data .
For all we know there other astrophysics model that can explain this without the need to inject dark matter in this .
( Yes I am physicist , and yes I am working on dark matter )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already read the actual paper, The problem with this, is that there is tons of models which can be fitted to the data.
One can find a model which predict these plots, and works perfectly, but it's exactly like looking at the clouds and seeing faces in them.
After the preliminarily results from  the Pamela experiment, everyone tried to fit his model to the data.
For all we know there other astrophysics model that can explain this without the need to inject dark matter in this.
(Yes I am physicist, and yes I am working on dark matter)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971784</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>ddxexex</author>
	<datestamp>1257256260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I swear <b>Wave-Particle Duality</b> is the 'God did it' of the physics world.   Can't explain something, <b>Wave-Particle Duality</b> is the reason!  Can't find a cause, <b>A Wave</b> is it!   Can't explain <b>it using a wave</b>, we got <b>particles</b>!  Can't explain <b>particles</b>, its<b>a wave</b>!</p></div><p>Heck lot's of things in Physics were like that, I mean we still can't really explain gravity all that well either so gravitons are clearly "God did it". Quantum Mechanics? Clearly God is playing dice. Higgs-boson yep it's a God particle. Dark Matter may be tough to explain, but it's no more a Deus-Ex Machina than much of the rest science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear Wave-Particle Duality is the 'God did it ' of the physics world .
Ca n't explain something , Wave-Particle Duality is the reason !
Ca n't find a cause , A Wave is it !
Ca n't explain it using a wave , we got particles !
Ca n't explain particles , itsa wave ! Heck lot 's of things in Physics were like that , I mean we still ca n't really explain gravity all that well either so gravitons are clearly " God did it " .
Quantum Mechanics ?
Clearly God is playing dice .
Higgs-boson yep it 's a God particle .
Dark Matter may be tough to explain , but it 's no more a Deus-Ex Machina than much of the rest science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear Wave-Particle Duality is the 'God did it' of the physics world.
Can't explain something, Wave-Particle Duality is the reason!
Can't find a cause, A Wave is it!
Can't explain it using a wave, we got particles!
Can't explain particles, itsa wave!Heck lot's of things in Physics were like that, I mean we still can't really explain gravity all that well either so gravitons are clearly "God did it".
Quantum Mechanics?
Clearly God is playing dice.
Higgs-boson yep it's a God particle.
Dark Matter may be tough to explain, but it's no more a Deus-Ex Machina than much of the rest science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972214</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1257259080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're absolutely right.  I therefore suggest we call it "Colorless Jesus Powder", in accordance with our new invisible overlord.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right .
I therefore suggest we call it " Colorless Jesus Powder " , in accordance with our new invisible overlord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right.
I therefore suggest we call it "Colorless Jesus Powder", in accordance with our new invisible overlord.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971506</id>
	<title>Voldemort</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who read the title as 'Dark Master'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who read the title as 'Dark Master ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who read the title as 'Dark Master'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973194</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Imrik</author>
	<datestamp>1257267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is proving that nothing else remains possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is proving that nothing else remains possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is proving that nothing else remains possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972344</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1257260040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is evolution. Why do we have 2 legs? Evolution! Why do we have a liver? Evolution! Why do we require water to survive? Evolution! Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is evolution .
Why do we have 2 legs ?
Evolution ! Why do we have a liver ?
Evolution ! Why do we require water to survive ?
Evolution ! Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is evolution.
Why do we have 2 legs?
Evolution! Why do we have a liver?
Evolution! Why do we require water to survive?
Evolution! Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29976036</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Very Possible</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1256989980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background, which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory. Of course, now a lot of people are trying to tack Dark Matter onto everything. I expect sooner or later dark matter will probably be used to explain Saturn's rings or Solar flares or turbulance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background .
Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background , which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory .
Of course , now a lot of people are trying to tack Dark Matter onto everything .
I expect sooner or later dark matter will probably be used to explain Saturn 's rings or Solar flares or turbulance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background.
Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background, which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory.
Of course, now a lot of people are trying to tack Dark Matter onto everything.
I expect sooner or later dark matter will probably be used to explain Saturn's rings or Solar flares or turbulance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972520</id>
	<title>Can we please just call it by its traditional name</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Magic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Magic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Magic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975292</id>
	<title>Re:It's a black hole!</title>
	<author>xbytor</author>
	<datestamp>1256982420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>XML</b> is sort of like violence. If it doesn't work, just use more of it.
<br> <br>
FTFY.</htmltext>
<tokenext>XML is sort of like violence .
If it does n't work , just use more of it .
FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML is sort of like violence.
If it doesn't work, just use more of it.
FTFY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971846</id>
	<title>Purple Haze</title>
	<author>ISoldat53</author>
	<datestamp>1257256680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Purple haze all in my eyes
Don't know if it's day or night
You've got me blowin, blowin my mind
Is it tomorrow or just the end of time? - Jimi Hendrix</htmltext>
<tokenext>Purple haze all in my eyes Do n't know if it 's day or night You 've got me blowin , blowin my mind Is it tomorrow or just the end of time ?
- Jimi Hendrix</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Purple haze all in my eyes
Don't know if it's day or night
You've got me blowin, blowin my mind
Is it tomorrow or just the end of time?
- Jimi Hendrix</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975970</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1256989320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man). </p></div><p>The words of a cocaine addict, written by a man who believed in fairies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever remains , however unlikely is surely the truth ( hence said a wise man ) .
The words of a cocaine addict , written by a man who believed in fairies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man).
The words of a cocaine addict, written by a man who believed in fairies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972082</id>
	<title>data resulted in something?</title>
	<author>gumbi west</author>
	<datestamp>1257258300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see that happen. Seriously, that is even worse than anything I've seen from taco.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see that happen .
Seriously , that is even worse than anything I 've seen from taco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see that happen.
Seriously, that is even worse than anything I've seen from taco.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973290</id>
	<title>Could be worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better dark matter than all the stars blowing up in a supernova chain reaction explosion that will flood our neighborhood with lethal radiation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better dark matter than all the stars blowing up in a supernova chain reaction explosion that will flood our neighborhood with lethal radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better dark matter than all the stars blowing up in a supernova chain reaction explosion that will flood our neighborhood with lethal radiation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972004</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1257257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what I thought too. Dark matter is <i>by definition</i> this extra mass we can't explain. If you explain part of it, then the part you explained isn't dark matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what I thought too .
Dark matter is by definition this extra mass we ca n't explain .
If you explain part of it , then the part you explained is n't dark matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what I thought too.
Dark matter is by definition this extra mass we can't explain.
If you explain part of it, then the part you explained isn't dark matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972180</id>
	<title>Re:It's a black hole!</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1257258840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not all doom and gloom.  I've heard there is in-flight spaghetti and fiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not all doom and gloom .
I 've heard there is in-flight spaghetti and fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not all doom and gloom.
I've heard there is in-flight spaghetti and fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971816</id>
	<title>And it went a little something like this:</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1257256560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CAPTAIN KIRK: Spock, come in here, can you make sense of these readings?</p><p>SPOCK: Captain, it appears that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center.</p><p>CAPTAIN KIRK: It's the most magnificent thing I've ever seen!</p><p>SPOCK: It is...fascinating.</p><p>CAPTAIN KIRK: But why would diffuse radiation need a starship?</p><p>DR. MCCOY: Come on over here, boys!  This galactic dick ain't gonna suck itself!</p><p>Thanks for reading and supporting fan fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CAPTAIN KIRK : Spock , come in here , can you make sense of these readings ? SPOCK : Captain , it appears that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center.CAPTAIN KIRK : It 's the most magnificent thing I 've ever seen ! SPOCK : It is...fascinating.CAPTAIN KIRK : But why would diffuse radiation need a starship ? DR .
MCCOY : Come on over here , boys !
This galactic dick ai n't gon na suck itself ! Thanks for reading and supporting fan fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CAPTAIN KIRK: Spock, come in here, can you make sense of these readings?SPOCK: Captain, it appears that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center.CAPTAIN KIRK: It's the most magnificent thing I've ever seen!SPOCK: It is...fascinating.CAPTAIN KIRK: But why would diffuse radiation need a starship?DR.
MCCOY: Come on over here, boys!
This galactic dick ain't gonna suck itself!Thanks for reading and supporting fan fiction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</id>
	<title>Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257255060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world.   Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!  Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!   Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy!  Can't explain Dark Energy, its Dark Matter!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it ' of the physics world .
Ca n't explain something , Dark Matter is the reason !
Ca n't find a cause , Dark Matter is it !
Ca n't explain Dark Matter , we got Dark Energy !
Ca n't explain Dark Energy , its Dark Matter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world.
Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!
Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!
Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy!
Can't explain Dark Energy, its Dark Matter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972654</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is <b>$Deity</b>. Why do we have 2 legs? <b>$Deity</b>! Why do we have a liver? <b>$Deity</b>! Why do we require water to survive? <b>$Deity</b>! <b>$Deity</b> is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.</p></div></blockquote><p> Does that sound familiar?  There's tons of evidence for evolution.  There's none for $Deity as it's a matter of faith.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is $ Deity .
Why do we have 2 legs ?
$ Deity ! Why do we have a liver ?
$ Deity ! Why do we require water to survive ?
$ Deity ! $ Deity is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time .
Does that sound familiar ?
There 's tons of evidence for evolution .
There 's none for $ Deity as it 's a matter of faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is $Deity.
Why do we have 2 legs?
$Deity! Why do we have a liver?
$Deity! Why do we require water to survive?
$Deity! $Deity is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.
Does that sound familiar?
There's tons of evidence for evolution.
There's none for $Deity as it's a matter of faith.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973440</id>
	<title>Re:It's a black hole!</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1257269160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just discrepancies in two particular aspects of astrophysics. Empirical observations suggest that there's more matter out there than we can see. However, because they sound vague and they're active areas of research (that is, they're mentioned often and it's clear we don't know what they are), people who have no real understanding of physics jump to the conclusion that it's some general hand-waving. Perhaps this makes them reinforces their belief that they're so much smarter than those durned scientists -- who knows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , " dark matter " and " dark energy " are just discrepancies in two particular aspects of astrophysics .
Empirical observations suggest that there 's more matter out there than we can see .
However , because they sound vague and they 're active areas of research ( that is , they 're mentioned often and it 's clear we do n't know what they are ) , people who have no real understanding of physics jump to the conclusion that it 's some general hand-waving .
Perhaps this makes them reinforces their belief that they 're so much smarter than those durned scientists -- who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just discrepancies in two particular aspects of astrophysics.
Empirical observations suggest that there's more matter out there than we can see.
However, because they sound vague and they're active areas of research (that is, they're mentioned often and it's clear we don't know what they are), people who have no real understanding of physics jump to the conclusion that it's some general hand-waving.
Perhaps this makes them reinforces their belief that they're so much smarter than those durned scientists -- who knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975598</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Very Possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Find a problem you can't solve.
2. Explain using Dark Matter.
3. ???
4. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Find a problem you ca n't solve .
2. Explain using Dark Matter .
3. ? ? ?
4. Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Find a problem you can't solve.
2. Explain using Dark Matter.
3. ???
4. Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080</id>
	<title>Call me an astrophysics noob, but</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1257258300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we keep invoking " dark matter " to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972002</id>
	<title>Explanation Very Possible</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1257257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!</p></div><p>
This is completely incorrect. This work is the result of looking for Dark Matter. Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background. Depending on what the Dark Matter is it may annihilate with itself and produce, amongst other things, electron-positron pairs. In fact the paper is really a very beautiful and elegant bit of work since the first bit of evidence which lead to this comes from the background 'noise' of one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter - the WMAP data! As such, far from noticing something and then attributing it to Dark Matter, this is actively looking for something that suggests evidence for Dark Matter. True the evidence does not show that it HAS to be Dark Matter but if you cannot attribute it to anything else which is known and you have models which suggest that Dark Matter might produce such a signal it is very interesting.
<br> <br>
Arkani-Hamed et al have a model which may explain this and which, if correct, predicts jets of leptons (electrons or muons) at the LHC. This is actually one of the things which my colleagues and I are looking for on the <a href="http://atlas.ch/" title="atlas.ch">ATLAS Experiment</a> [atlas.ch]. If we do observe them then this will be further evidence for Dark Matter and not a "oh, something else we cannot explain and put down to Dark Matter". Until we have enough bits of evidence that, combined, show that Dark Matter is the only possible cause there will always be some doubt but that should not be construed as flailing around and using Dark Matter to explain every observation that is inexplicable. Indeed, the fact that we are using Dark Matter models to suggest observations and experiments to perform and then finding that these return "inexplicable" results is very, very interesting!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't explain something , Dark Matter is the reason !
Ca n't find a cause , Dark Matter is it !
This is completely incorrect .
This work is the result of looking for Dark Matter .
Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background .
Depending on what the Dark Matter is it may annihilate with itself and produce , amongst other things , electron-positron pairs .
In fact the paper is really a very beautiful and elegant bit of work since the first bit of evidence which lead to this comes from the background 'noise ' of one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter - the WMAP data !
As such , far from noticing something and then attributing it to Dark Matter , this is actively looking for something that suggests evidence for Dark Matter .
True the evidence does not show that it HAS to be Dark Matter but if you can not attribute it to anything else which is known and you have models which suggest that Dark Matter might produce such a signal it is very interesting .
Arkani-Hamed et al have a model which may explain this and which , if correct , predicts jets of leptons ( electrons or muons ) at the LHC .
This is actually one of the things which my colleagues and I are looking for on the ATLAS Experiment [ atlas.ch ] .
If we do observe them then this will be further evidence for Dark Matter and not a " oh , something else we can not explain and put down to Dark Matter " .
Until we have enough bits of evidence that , combined , show that Dark Matter is the only possible cause there will always be some doubt but that should not be construed as flailing around and using Dark Matter to explain every observation that is inexplicable .
Indeed , the fact that we are using Dark Matter models to suggest observations and experiments to perform and then finding that these return " inexplicable " results is very , very interesting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!
Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!
This is completely incorrect.
This work is the result of looking for Dark Matter.
Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background.
Depending on what the Dark Matter is it may annihilate with itself and produce, amongst other things, electron-positron pairs.
In fact the paper is really a very beautiful and elegant bit of work since the first bit of evidence which lead to this comes from the background 'noise' of one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter - the WMAP data!
As such, far from noticing something and then attributing it to Dark Matter, this is actively looking for something that suggests evidence for Dark Matter.
True the evidence does not show that it HAS to be Dark Matter but if you cannot attribute it to anything else which is known and you have models which suggest that Dark Matter might produce such a signal it is very interesting.
Arkani-Hamed et al have a model which may explain this and which, if correct, predicts jets of leptons (electrons or muons) at the LHC.
This is actually one of the things which my colleagues and I are looking for on the ATLAS Experiment [atlas.ch].
If we do observe them then this will be further evidence for Dark Matter and not a "oh, something else we cannot explain and put down to Dark Matter".
Until we have enough bits of evidence that, combined, show that Dark Matter is the only possible cause there will always be some doubt but that should not be construed as flailing around and using Dark Matter to explain every observation that is inexplicable.
Indeed, the fact that we are using Dark Matter models to suggest observations and experiments to perform and then finding that these return "inexplicable" results is very, very interesting!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971646</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971754</id>
	<title>Totally ignorant of the whole shebang</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but I think we oughtta shed some light on this subject, and soon.</p><p>Ba-da-ching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I think we oughtta shed some light on this subject , and soon.Ba-da-ching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I think we oughtta shed some light on this subject, and soon.Ba-da-ching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975202</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, isn't it wonderful? Darwin was truly a great genius to explain so much with something so simple. An exceptional man all-round really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , is n't it wonderful ?
Darwin was truly a great genius to explain so much with something so simple .
An exceptional man all-round really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, isn't it wonderful?
Darwin was truly a great genius to explain so much with something so simple.
An exceptional man all-round really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972340</id>
	<title>Submitted for your, um, *approval*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas K. Landauer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas K. Landauer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas K. Landauer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971768</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"god did it" is a little different from, "there seems to be a source of gravitational attraction, we're not sure what it is, but it seems distinct from 'regular' matter; let's call it 'dark matter' while we continue to investigate."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" god did it " is a little different from , " there seems to be a source of gravitational attraction , we 're not sure what it is , but it seems distinct from 'regular ' matter ; let 's call it 'dark matter ' while we continue to investigate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"god did it" is a little different from, "there seems to be a source of gravitational attraction, we're not sure what it is, but it seems distinct from 'regular' matter; let's call it 'dark matter' while we continue to investigate.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973838</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257271740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it! Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy! Can't explain Dark Energy, its Dark Matter!</p></div><p>You have it backwards.</p><p>Dark matter theories have been used to make predictions, and scientific testing on observations has shown those predictions to be true.</p><p>Lets see your god predict something.</p><p>(By 'your god' I don't mean you personally, as I do not know your religious beliefs.  'Your' refers to the term from your own post.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it ' of the physics world .
Ca n't explain something , Dark Matter is the reason !
Ca n't find a cause , Dark Matter is it !
Ca n't explain Dark Matter , we got Dark Energy !
Ca n't explain Dark Energy , its Dark Matter ! You have it backwards.Dark matter theories have been used to make predictions , and scientific testing on observations has shown those predictions to be true.Lets see your god predict something .
( By 'your god ' I do n't mean you personally , as I do not know your religious beliefs .
'Your ' refers to the term from your own post .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world.
Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!
Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!
Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy!
Can't explain Dark Energy, its Dark Matter!You have it backwards.Dark matter theories have been used to make predictions, and scientific testing on observations has shown those predictions to be true.Lets see your god predict something.
(By 'your god' I don't mean you personally, as I do not know your religious beliefs.
'Your' refers to the term from your own post.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972442</id>
	<title>Dark matter physics?</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1257260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,'</p></div><p>
Quite a shady subject...<br>
Random mass we don't know the origin of and can't identify? Lets call it dark, and assume we have physics about it. Ok, now we've found some radiation we can't find the origin of. Well, looks to be the same physics we're dealing with...<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... right guys?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics, ' Quite a shady subject.. . Random mass we do n't know the origin of and ca n't identify ?
Lets call it dark , and assume we have physics about it .
Ok , now we 've found some radiation we ca n't find the origin of .
Well , looks to be the same physics we 're dealing with... .... right guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,'
Quite a shady subject...
Random mass we don't know the origin of and can't identify?
Lets call it dark, and assume we have physics about it.
Ok, now we've found some radiation we can't find the origin of.
Well, looks to be the same physics we're dealing with... .... right guys?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972054</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257258060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There appears to be something out there that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but does not glow or reflect light.  Doesn't glow:-&gt; dark.  Has gravity: -&gt; matter.  Therefor we call it "dark matter", for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There appears to be something out there that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but does not glow or reflect light .
Does n't glow : - &gt; dark .
Has gravity : - &gt; matter .
Therefor we call it " dark matter " , for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There appears to be something out there that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but does not glow or reflect light.
Doesn't glow:-&gt; dark.
Has gravity: -&gt; matter.
Therefor we call it "dark matter", for now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972104</id>
	<title>I'm not a racist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257258480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but I prefer white matter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I prefer white matter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I prefer white matter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972244</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1257259320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they try to avoid the subject of dark matter. It is simply an unknown astrophysical phenomenon. Since they ran out of other possibilities, one could say that what ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man). However, there are probably other researchers who will be able to further this discovery, determine the cause of the phenomenon and provide a non-darkmatterish explanation...just for your satisfaction of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they try to avoid the subject of dark matter .
It is simply an unknown astrophysical phenomenon .
Since they ran out of other possibilities , one could say that what ever remains , however unlikely is surely the truth ( hence said a wise man ) .
However , there are probably other researchers who will be able to further this discovery , determine the cause of the phenomenon and provide a non-darkmatterish explanation...just for your satisfaction of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they try to avoid the subject of dark matter.
It is simply an unknown astrophysical phenomenon.
Since they ran out of other possibilities, one could say that what ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man).
However, there are probably other researchers who will be able to further this discovery, determine the cause of the phenomenon and provide a non-darkmatterish explanation...just for your satisfaction of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971774</id>
	<title>Re:Explanation Impossible</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257256200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!</p></div></blockquote><p>All slashdot dupes come from the dark matter.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it ' of the physics world .
Ca n't explain something , Dark Matter is the reason ! All slashdot dupes come from the dark matter .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world.
Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!All slashdot dupes come from the dark matter.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.30013170</id>
	<title>Please do some Reading</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1257589320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background, which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory.</p></div><p>
I'd suggest you do a little reading about the WMAP probe and the fluctuations it measured in the Cosmic Microwave background. So far the only consistent Big Bang models which can explain these fluctuations involve large amounts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Indeed Dark Matter and Energy is the only way we can make the observed fluctuations consistent with existing physics and the Big Bang so you really could not be more wrong if you tried because without Dark Matter we MUST have either new, unconventional physics or something other than a Big Bang.
<br> <br>
Of course there is considerably more evidence than just WMAP. One in particular, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet\_Cluster" title="wikipedia.org">the bullet cluster</a> [wikipedia.org], is extremely hard to explain using modified newtonian dynamics or the other models which at the alternatives to Dark Matter. However science has advanced from the 1960s and with the data we now have it is not possible to construct consistent models with conventional physis</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background , which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory .
I 'd suggest you do a little reading about the WMAP probe and the fluctuations it measured in the Cosmic Microwave background .
So far the only consistent Big Bang models which can explain these fluctuations involve large amounts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy .
Indeed Dark Matter and Energy is the only way we can make the observed fluctuations consistent with existing physics and the Big Bang so you really could not be more wrong if you tried because without Dark Matter we MUST have either new , unconventional physics or something other than a Big Bang .
Of course there is considerably more evidence than just WMAP .
One in particular , the bullet cluster [ wikipedia.org ] , is extremely hard to explain using modified newtonian dynamics or the other models which at the alternatives to Dark Matter .
However science has advanced from the 1960s and with the data we now have it is not possible to construct consistent models with conventional physis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background, which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory.
I'd suggest you do a little reading about the WMAP probe and the fluctuations it measured in the Cosmic Microwave background.
So far the only consistent Big Bang models which can explain these fluctuations involve large amounts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Indeed Dark Matter and Energy is the only way we can make the observed fluctuations consistent with existing physics and the Big Bang so you really could not be more wrong if you tried because without Dark Matter we MUST have either new, unconventional physics or something other than a Big Bang.
Of course there is considerably more evidence than just WMAP.
One in particular, the bullet cluster [wikipedia.org], is extremely hard to explain using modified newtonian dynamics or the other models which at the alternatives to Dark Matter.
However science has advanced from the 1960s and with the data we now have it is not possible to construct consistent models with conventional physis
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29976036</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29982940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.30013170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29976036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_008213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29973838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29982940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29976036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.30013170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29975598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29971506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_008213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_008213.29972442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
