If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   The problem with the whole dark matter hypothesis is that we can't seem to find any at all in our neighborhood   (phys.org) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, dark matter, logical possibility, time dilations, galactic coordinate system, Milky Way Galaxy, spectrographs, La Silla Observatory, relative motion  
•       •       •

1885 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Apr 2012 at 10:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-19 08:48:49 AM  
Well this is a gated community.
 
2012-04-19 08:58:32 AM  
Is this a repeat of The Bachelor thread?
 
2012-04-19 09:13:13 AM  
That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.
 
2012-04-19 09:26:20 AM  

GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.



Dark matter is visible. It's little round black ping pong balls that weight several tons each.

Didn't ever watch that documentary about that pizza delivery boy from the year 3000?
 
2012-04-19 09:27:50 AM  

doglover: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.


Dark matter is visible. It's little round black ping pong balls that weight several tons each.

Didn't ever watch that documentary about that pizza delivery boy from the year 3000?


i575.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-19 09:33:22 AM  
I had the same problem with the 'sexy girl next door that liked to lay out in a bikini'.

They were supposed to be all around, but I didn't have any in my neighborhood...
 
2012-04-19 11:00:51 AM  

GAT_00: The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses


That adjustment? We call it dark matter. Right now, it seems more likely that dark matter takes the form of a weakly interacting particle, but the label "dark matter" is a placeholder for whatever adjustment we actually need to make.

So, that said- dark matter definitely exists. We just don't know what it is.
 
2012-04-19 11:07:37 AM  
Can someone with a firm grasp on astrophysics(or whatever) edit the Famous Epicurus, God quote substituting Dark Matter for God?
 
2012-04-19 11:10:08 AM  

GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses.


OK, now please explain the bullet cluster using a modified theory of gravity.
 
2012-04-19 11:14:03 AM  
Jewish particles haven't started selling their homes yet?
 
2012-04-19 11:17:19 AM  
Maybe it's because over-zealous cop-wannabes keep shooting them when they go out to buy skittles.
 
2012-04-19 11:18:28 AM  

GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.


That doesn't explain things like the bullet cluster. The bullet cluster is a collision between 2 galaxies where the majority of the visible mass is not located in the same region as the total mass of the cluster. We can "see" (through it's gravitational affect) the very massive non luminous part of the galaxy is separate from the luminous gas/dust. There is something there that has mass and is different from "normal" matter.
 
2012-04-19 11:27:22 AM  
i don't think white dwarf stars exist because there isn't on in the solar system.

and other galaxies can't exist because there aren't any other galaxies in the entire milky way!

/it's a silly argument
 
2012-04-19 11:40:25 AM  
There is no dark matter, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark.
 
2012-04-19 11:41:33 AM  

burndtdan: it's a silly argument


Not quite. "If this model of dark matter is true, then it predicts this concentration of dark matter within our solar system. We don't see this concentration. Ergo, this model of dark matter may not be true."
 
2012-04-19 11:43:39 AM  
The Sun, Lieserl. The Sun ...
 
2012-04-19 11:43:39 AM  
So. What is it that rules out something like galactic-scale Oort clouds of rogue planets (MaCHOs or what have you) as the source of most of this unaccounted-for nonluminous matter? Aren't astronomers biased toward expecting to see glowy things? Before you invoke deuterium abundances, can you convince me that dark matter isn't built in to the model of baryon formation ratios because of the assumption that there is dark matter? Also, wasn't there a Fark article recently about dust grains of a particular size that (probably getting this way wrong...) reflect photons and work as tiny solar sails instead of absorbing heat, staying misleadingly cool (and thus nonluminous) given their mass?

and what about dark energy stars?
 
2012-04-19 12:04:26 PM  

Ivo Shandor: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses.

OK, now please explain the bullet cluster using a modified theory of gravity.


"To detect this separation of dark and luminous matter, researchers compared x-ray images of the luminous matter with measurements of the cluster's total mass. To learn the total mass, they took measurements of a phenomenon called gravitational lensing, which occurs when the cluster's gravity distorts light from background galaxies. The greater the distortion, the more massive the cluster.

By measuring these distortions with the Hubble Space Telescope, the Magellan Telescopes and the Very Large Telescope, the team mapped out the location of all the mass in the bullet cluster. They then compared these measurements to x-ray images of the luminous matter taken with the Chandra X-ray Observatory and discovered four separate clumps of matter: two large clumps of dark matter speeding away from the collision, and two smaller clumps of luminous matter trailing in their wake."

Why don't you first explain how this isn't some made up bullshiat?
 
2012-04-19 12:16:38 PM  
The thing about dark matter, right, it's main distinguishing feature is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is its black.
 
2012-04-19 12:16:45 PM  

tankjr: Why don't you first explain how this isn't some made up bullshiat?


You would need to understand what science is before this could be explained to you. I'm not trying to be an asshat, but what you quoted makes perfect sense.
 
2012-04-19 12:22:02 PM  

rdyb: So. What is it that rules out something like galactic-scale Oort clouds of rogue planets (MaCHOs or what have you) as the source of most of this unaccounted-for nonluminous matter? Aren't astronomers biased toward expecting to see glowy things? Before you invoke deuterium abundances, can you convince me that dark matter isn't built in to the model of baryon formation ratios because of the assumption that there is dark matter? Also, wasn't there a Fark article recently about dust grains of a particular size that (probably getting this way wrong...) reflect photons and work as tiny solar sails instead of absorbing heat, staying misleadingly cool (and thus nonluminous) given their mass?

and what about dark energy stars?


I'm just guessing here, but I don't think rogue planets could account for the amount of mass we're dealing with here. Something like 99.9% of the mass in our own solar system is in the Sun. And if dark matter does account for the wikipedia-cited 83% of matter in the universe, you'd need something like 2 quintillion Jupiter-sized rogue planets to account for the dark matter in the Milky Way. That's about 4900 rogue planets per star.
 
2012-04-19 12:28:11 PM  

Baryogenesis: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.

That doesn't explain things like the bullet cluster. The bullet cluster is a collision between 2 galaxies where the majority of the visible mass is not located in the same region as the total mass of the cluster. We can "see" (through it's gravitational affect) the very massive non luminous part of the galaxy is separate from the luminous gas/dust. There is something there that has mass and is different from "normal" matter.


Or it's just all the dust and other "light" matter in the two galaxies, speeding ahead of the "heavy" matter (planets, suns) after collision because the less mass you have, the easier it is to get out of a gravitational field. Moving into impact, all objects in each galaxy would have achieved the same approaching inertia as their shared gravities pulled the every object in the two galaxies together at an equal rate. After impact, the less-massive objects would have been slowed down less because they have less mass, making them relatively faster than the more massive objects. In that case, the explanation would be simple inertia and a basic sling-shot effect. The heavy objects slow down and "clump" because gravity is a two way street; having more mass, and thus generating more gravity, they reduce each others' inertia to a greater degree than the less massive objects, then, entangled in each others' gravity, these two clusters of massive objects alter each others' paths, burning more inertia from the effected objects in the process.

The difference in luminosity is a difference in diffusion and content; two large, disperse clouds of "lighter", smaller materials would reflect and generate less radiation to measure than two small, compact clumps of "heavier", larger materials. At the same time, the sheer volume of "light" materials in any galaxy would mean it, collectively, had more mass than the heavy objects (just as insects make up a greater percentage of bio-mass than elephants), explaining the lensing results.
 
2012-04-19 12:28:28 PM  

burndtdan: i don't think white dwarf stars exist because there isn't on in the solar system.

and other galaxies can't exist because there aren't any other galaxies in the entire milky way!

/it's a silly argument


Would like a word...

www.animalactors.net
 
2012-04-19 12:29:21 PM  

Ivo Shandor: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses.

OK, now please explain the bullet cluster using a modified theory of gravity.


The MOND folks haven't given up on that yet- see the paper abstract here.

I'm nowhere near enough of a physicist to be able to judge if their extensions are reasonable, but I'd say they certainly aren't crackpots.
 
2012-04-19 12:34:45 PM  

GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.


Hmmmm, do we listen to physicists, or GAT? Decisions, decisions...
 
2012-04-19 12:50:10 PM  
Math error.
 
2012-04-19 01:08:20 PM  

tankjr: Why don't you first explain how this isn't some made up bullshiat?


Physics.
 
2012-04-19 01:21:11 PM  
Dark matter is the tinfoil hat physicists use to keep Yog Sothoth out of their brainwaves.
 
2012-04-19 01:23:52 PM  

Heron: Baryogenesis: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.

That doesn't explain things like the bullet cluster. The bullet cluster is a collision between 2 galaxies where the majority of the visible mass is not located in the same region as the total mass of the cluster. We can "see" (through it's gravitational affect) the very massive non luminous part of the galaxy is separate from the luminous gas/dust. There is something there that has mass and is different from "normal" matter.

Or it's just all the dust and other "light" matter in the two galaxies, speeding ahead of the "heavy" matter (planets, suns) after collision because the less mass you have, the easier it is to get out of a gravitational field. Moving into impact, all objects in each galaxy would have achieved the same approaching inertia as their shared gravities pulled the every object in the two galaxies together at an equal rate. After impact, the less-massive objects would have been slowed down less because they have less mass, making them relatively faster than the more massive objects. In that case, the explanation would be simple inertia and a basic sling-shot effect. The heavy objects slow down and "clump" because gravity is a two way street; having more mass, and thus generating more gravity, they reduce each others' inertia to a greater degree than the less massive objects, then, entangled in each others' gravity, these two clusters of massive objects alter each others' paths, burning more inertia from the effected objects in the process.

The difference in luminosity is a difference in diffusion and content; two large, disperse clouds of "lighter", smaller materials would reflect and generate less radiation to measure than two small, ...


Actually, the stars and planets pass through relatively unimpeded because there's a lot of space in galaxies (few collisions of large objects) and gravity didn't slow them down much. The same goes for the dark matter. It's all the stuff that interacts electromagnetically that was slowed.
 
2012-04-19 01:53:26 PM  
FTFA (footnotes)

"The new measurements find 0.00±0.07 kilograms of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth."

Really? 0.00±0.07 kilograms? So there could be as little as -0.07 kg of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth. So if there were a negative amount of dark matter wouldn't that really fark things up for all the scientists?

/0.035±0.035 maybe?
 
2012-04-19 03:20:42 PM  

Baryogenesis: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.

That doesn't explain things like the bullet cluster. The bullet cluster is a collision between 2 galaxies where the majority of the visible mass is not located in the same region as the total mass of the cluster. We can "see" (through it's gravitational affect) the very massive non luminous part of the galaxy is separate from the luminous gas/dust. There is something there that has mass and is different from "normal" matter.


Being the devil's advocate here, the article states we determined mass through gravitational lensing. If we posit that our understanding of gravitaion at large scales is incomplete, then it would be valid to challenge the method used to determine the mass of the cluster. In other words, if gravity is wrong, then the whole study is wrong.
 
2012-04-19 04:38:46 PM  

Jubeebee: rdyb: So. What is it that rules out something like galactic-scale Oort clouds of rogue planets (MaCHOs or what have you) as the source of most of this unaccounted-for nonluminous matter? Aren't astronomers biased toward expecting to see glowy things? Before you invoke deuterium abundances, can you convince me that dark matter isn't built in to the model of baryon formation ratios because of the assumption that there is dark matter? Also, wasn't there a Fark article recently about dust grains of a particular size that (probably getting this way wrong...) reflect photons and work as tiny solar sails instead of absorbing heat, staying misleadingly cool (and thus nonluminous) given their mass?

and what about dark energy stars?

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think rogue planets could account for the amount of mass we're dealing with here. Something like 99.9% of the mass in our own solar system is in the Sun. And if dark matter does account for the wikipedia-cited 83% of matter in the universe, you'd need something like 2 quintillion Jupiter-sized rogue planets to account for the dark matter in the Milky Way. That's about 4900 rogue planets per star.


To be fair, Rogues are really, really good at sneaking...
 
2012-04-19 07:05:32 PM  

Baryogenesis: Heron: Baryogenesis: GAT_00: That's probably because it doesn't make any farking sense. The more obvious solution I think is that the theory of gravity is incomplete when upscaled to galaxy-sized masses. Pretending that 90% of the entire universe is invisible matter and energy always seemed like an idiotic conclusion.

That doesn't explain things like the bullet cluster. The bullet cluster is a collision between 2 galaxies where the majority of the visible mass is not located in the same region as the total mass of the cluster. We can "see" (through it's gravitational affect) the very massive non luminous part of the galaxy is separate from the luminous gas/dust. There is something there that has mass and is different from "normal" matter.

Or it's just all the dust and other "light" matter in the two galaxies, speeding ahead of the "heavy" matter (planets, suns) after collision because the less mass you have, the easier it is to get out of a gravitational field. Moving into impact, all objects in each galaxy would have achieved the same approaching inertia as their shared gravities pulled the every object in the two galaxies together at an equal rate. After impact, the less-massive objects would have been slowed down less because they have less mass, making them relatively faster than the more massive objects. In that case, the explanation would be simple inertia and a basic sling-shot effect. The heavy objects slow down and "clump" because gravity is a two way street; having more mass, and thus generating more gravity, they reduce each others' inertia to a greater degree than the less massive objects, then, entangled in each others' gravity, these two clusters of massive objects alter each others' paths, burning more inertia from the effected objects in the process.

The difference in luminosity is a difference in diffusion and content; two large, disperse clouds of "lighter", smaller materials would reflect and generate less radiation to measure than two small, ...

Actually, the stars and planets pass through relatively unimpeded because there's a lot of space in galaxies (few collisions of large objects) and gravity didn't slow them down much. The same goes for the dark matter. It's all the stuff that interacts electromagnetically that was slowed.


At galaxy-sized distances electromagnetic forces are REALLY weak. Dark matter, if it exists, would weakly interact with gravity, since it's gravity what slowed them stars in the cluster down.
 
2012-04-19 07:06:04 PM  

John Nash: Being the devil's advocate here, the article states we determined mass through gravitational lensing. If we posit that our understanding of gravitaion at large scales is incomplete, then it would be valid to challenge the method used to determine the mass of the cluster. In other words, if gravity is wrong, then the whole study is wrong.


That's actually a good point. In any case, if dark matter is as heavy as it's supposed to be, it should be concentrated in the heart of every star in the cluster rather than just floating through space.

It's also possible that the "dark" matter in the bullet cluster is just ordinary matter which doesn't show up much in the x-ray spectrum, thereby making it invisible to the survey. No need for something exotic.

/what we need to do is invent the F-ray
 
2012-04-19 07:42:41 PM  
Ssssh. It is only a model.

Subby is right on the wording, dark matter is only a hypothesis that gives a good explanation for most of the contradictions and anomalies that we observe. It's not a real thing.
 
2012-04-19 07:59:19 PM  
The whole "Dark Matter / Dark Energy comprise most of the universe" thing has always seemed to be a code for "We don't understand things at the multi-galactic level, so here's a "fudge factor" to make the numbers work.

Every time we have postulated that our corner of the universe is somehow "special," later-discovered facts have shown that to be an ignorant view. With this one, we are "special" in that there isn't any dark matter or energy in OUR system, only in galaxies whose time shift makes our observations long ago, and far, far, away. If I had to bet, I'd put my money on "Yep, we're not special THIS way, either -- we just didn't understand about ...X," like every other time we postulate our own "specialness." All we have to do is find out what X is in this case...
 
2012-04-19 08:11:27 PM  
As someone with relatively nil astronomical studies / knowledge of the cosmos, how stupid is this thought:

That space is indeed more than 3 dimensions and folds into itself in ways such that gravitational pull in one 3-dimensional plane exerts a non-local force in other parts of the universe? (double counting error!)
 
2012-04-19 08:30:10 PM  
Maybe it would help if they looked for matter that wasn't too dark.
 
2012-04-19 10:14:24 PM  

Type40: The thing about dark matter, right, it's main distinguishing feature is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is its black.



cdn.ientry.com
 
2012-04-19 10:29:17 PM  

GeneralJim: With this one, we are "special" in that there isn't any dark matter or energy in OUR system


According to one survey, using one methodology. We can see it way the fark over there, so a) either the survey was wrong, b) the methodology is flawed, c) we're looking for the wrong hypothetical version of dark matter, or d) the entire hypothesis needs to be re-evaluated.
 
2012-04-20 01:15:56 AM  

wildhalcyon: At galaxy-sized distances electromagnetic forces are REALLY weak. Dark matter, if it exists, would weakly interact with gravity, since it's gravity what slowed them stars in the cluster down.


It's not at a galaxy sized distance when the interstellar dust and gas collides with other dust and gas.
 
2012-04-20 01:47:16 AM  
hmm so lets posit, dark energy which is responsible for the acceleration of the galaxies away from each other instead of slowing down (yeah entropy is a biotch) which is created from dark matter that we cannot see and is made up of most of the matter in the verse, all exists somewhere we cannot see. My that sounds like it all exists in a dimension that is 90 degrees out of synch with what we perceive. How can that be? look at the old explanation of how if we were creatures that lived on a two dimensional object, they could discover the math or science that tells them that another dimension exists but because their senses only perceive 2 dimensions they would not have a clue as to what the 3rd dimension is or how to look at it. In other words we would have to learn how to literally think outside the box to find all that matter hanging around. And that my friends would lead to a whole bunch of possibilities such as travel throughout the universe almost instantaneously by not going faster than the speed of light but rather taking the shortcuts through that dimension or as the syfy writers like to use so often, folding space or warping it.
/who knows I might be right.
//too bad I will be dead by the time they figure it out I want the naming rights.
 
2012-04-20 02:21:06 AM  

paleryder69: hmm so lets posit, dark energy which is responsible for the acceleration of the galaxies away from each other instead of slowing down (yeah entropy is a biotch) which is created from dark matter that we cannot see and is made up of most of the matter in the verse, all exists somewhere we cannot see. My that sounds like it all exists in a dimension that is 90 degrees out of synch with what we perceive. How can that be? look at the old explanation of how if we were creatures that lived on a two dimensional object, they could discover the math or science that tells them that another dimension exists but because their senses only perceive 2 dimensions they would not have a clue as to what the 3rd dimension is or how to look at it. In other words we would have to learn how to literally think outside the box to find all that matter hanging around. And that my friends would lead to a whole bunch of possibilities such as travel throughout the universe almost instantaneously by not going faster than the speed of light but rather taking the shortcuts through that dimension or as the syfy writers like to use so often, folding space or warping it.
/who knows I might be right.
//too bad I will be dead by the time they figure it out I want the naming rights.


This is what happens when you don't do the math.
 
2012-04-20 03:44:26 AM  
t3knomanser:
GeneralJim: With this one, we are "special" in that there isn't any dark matter or energy in OUR system

According to one survey, using one methodology. We can see it way the fark over there, so a) either the survey was wrong, b) the methodology is flawed, c) we're looking for the wrong hypothetical version of dark matter, or d) the entire hypothesis needs to be re-evaluated.

Setting aside the bizarre concept that we "can detect" dark matter billions of light years away, but not in our own solar system...

The basic problem, IMHO, is that "We really don't have a friggin' clue, just some wild-assed speculation. How about we get back to you when we know more?" sounds SO unscientific. In reality, it's a TOTALLY scientific approach, and often the stone cold truth. Journalists just need to accept that as an answer, and even SUGGEST it as an answer when someone starts talking weird shiat.


I'm not saying it's dark matter,
i44.tinypic.com
but it's dark matter
 
2012-04-20 03:52:31 AM  
Seems like the right thread...
www.salem-news.com
HAPPY HOLIDAY!
 
2012-04-20 05:25:41 AM  

Type40: The thing about dark matter, right, it's main distinguishing feature is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is its black.


Didn`t they have a look and decide it was sort of orange?
 
2012-04-20 08:13:27 AM  

GeneralJim: Setting aside the bizarre concept that we "can detect" dark matter billions of light years away, but not in our own solar system...


I'm not sure what's bizarre about it. We detect dark matter by its collective action- we can only detect very large (galactic) sized quantities with any reliability. So it should surprise no one that we don't have a galactic quantity of dark matter in our local stellar system.

GeneralJim: The basic problem, IMHO


It's good that we can all agree that your opinion is worthless. What we have is observations. What we have is a name for those observations. What we have is a collection of hypotheses that we can evaluate based on available evidence. No one is 100% convinced we're going to find WIMPs, but based on what we know about particle physics, astronomy, the Big Bang, and many many other observations, WIMPs are currently the best candidate for dark matter, so people are working hard to confirm or destroy that hypothesis.

That is the totally scientific approach. What isn't scientific is the way the popular press covers these subjects, which leads to stupid people like yourself saying stupid things in public.
 
2012-04-20 10:44:22 AM  
t3knomanser:
It's good that we can all agree that your opinion is worthless.

You took a survey? Or, is that the Imperial Douche "We." Don't hold back -- go ahead and use some humility for a change; you've earned it.
 
2012-04-20 12:22:07 PM  

paleryder69: hmm so lets posit, dark energy which is responsible for the acceleration of the galaxies away from each other instead of slowing down (yeah entropy is a biotch) which is created from dark matter that we cannot see and is made up of most of the matter in the verse, all exists somewhere we cannot see.


Your first two sentences are wrong. You're relating entropy and expansion of the universe the wrong way, and dark matter doesn't "make" dark energy, nor is it wholly invisible.
 
2012-04-20 12:31:36 PM  

GeneralJim: t3knomanser: It's good that we can all agree that your opinion is worthless.
You took a survey? Or, is that the Imperial Douche "We." Don't hold back -- go ahead and use some humility for a change; you've earned it.


I wouldn't take it personally (even if he meant it that way).

I'm a (good enough) scientist on a big experiment, and if I walked in the door and said that someone's theory was bullshiat without evidence to back it up, they would be right to tell me that my opinion was worthless.

Science is made of facts, not postulations.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report