Hundreds of millions of stars tightly packed, a small patch of this galaxy. No the darker areas are not gaps they're space clouds in front of them yes there's clouds in space, imagine that! How he fuck do they not fall into each other and why the fuck does all of this stuff even exist? The fucking scale. And all of this is swirling into a huge black hole - flushed down the toilet!
Is this what "dark matter" actually is? No one thought to account for stars that aren't visible to us?
>>17078511cool it with the anti semitism
>>17078546Wut
>>17078511Stars that aren't visible are accounted for
>>17078508>Hundreds of millions of stars tightly packed, a small patch of this galaxy.Globular star clusters are even denser.>No the darker areas are not gaps they're space clouds in front of them yes there's clouds in space, imagine that! How he fuck do they not fall into each other and why the fuck does all of this stuff even exist?LIGO shows collisions do happen. As for why, that just follows from the laws of nature.>The fucking scale.It scales from small clusters to gigantic galaxies.>And all of this is swirling into a huge black hole - flushed down the toilet!Stars take a long time swirling around the central black hole before being shredded and eaten.
>>17078508In every one of these star systems there are billions of animals fucking and sucking each other
>>17079788What if there’s no animals at all in these other star systems
>>17078508falling into each other is actually pretty difficult and most of the time they miss
>>17079789why would Hashem waste a good star?
M32 galaxy, its core is one of the regions in space the most densely packed with stars. In the core with the greatest star density, two adjacent stars are about 500 AU away from each other. That would be something like 54 meters (about two tennis fields and an SUV for americans) away from each other if proportions were scaled down so that the sun was the size of the ball in a ball point pen. So even in the most dense regions it's just vast empty space and little tiny puny stars great distances from each other. If Voyager 1 was in the core of M32, it could have visited about 173 different stars in its one light day journey.
>>17079877>If Voyager 1 was in the core of M32, it could have visited about 173 different stars in its one light day journey.so socialite stars?
>>17079877>chatbot makes a off by 1000 errorheh at least they make the same mistakes humans do these days
>Hundreds of millions of stars tightly packed, a small patch of this galaxy. No the darker areas are not gaps they're space clouds in front of them yes there's clouds in space, imagine that!The apparent size of stars in that image is caused by the telescope. Any object smaller than the limiting resolution of a telescope just the same size in the image. Normal telescopes can only resolve some of the very closest giant stars, like betelguese. All of the rest are unresolved.The stars look much bigger in the image than they really are in 3D space. If you had a magic telescope which had infinite resolution, the image would be almost empty. If you consider the Sun as an example. It has a radius of 7E5 km. The distance to Proxima Centauri is 4E13 km. Or 60 million solar radii.>>17078511People thought about that literally as soon as the hypothesis was created, by Zwicky. But it doesn't work. Even totally dark stars would occasionally gravitationally lens background stars. And if you monitor millions of stars over years you can find such events, but nowhere near enough to be dark matter.
>>17080185You are assuming gravitational lensing is actually scientifically tested, which it is not. Nor is gravity. Just endless half baked conjurations rejected for the next unfinished one.Sorry champ.
>>17080187wtf I'm literally floating rn, praise kek
>>17080187It is empirically tested. As the displacement with radius from the Sun has been tested to very high precision, and it matches the predictions of GR.There are exactly zero alternative explanations which match the data.>Nor is gravity.Lel. So it's just a coincidence all those spacecraft made it to where their targets based on gravitational theory?
i could write paragrapghs and describe you how it all operates for decades, but i'll dumb it down, yes it was created, the pattern repeats because the rules/boundary conditions for all energy transformation remains the same, all energy/forces operate through space, and space predates the energy, the atoms swirl upwards, it's inherently a plus, you soul/multidimensional pattern operates through space, while your body made of atoms operate on space, anyway you'll find this interesting, the tree has a soul and is capable of reason like a human, the whole universe is alive.
>>17080196That is a fallacy. An argument isn't true because an alternative isn't provided. Nice fedora btw.Is data an explanation?
>>17081315>An argument isn't trueStawman. I never claimed it was. Your claim was gravity wasn't even tested, which is complete nonsense.
>>17078508The Lord's creation is as vast as it is beautiful and it just works.
>>17078552he's just trying to make it seem like nonsense
>>17081532Liar. The previous post claims the data is the test of so called matching. But you just admittes data isnt an explanation so how does your claim follow?How would you remove the Sun to test if the effect is still there or not? How come you stated an observation of some apparent phenomenon is an explanation of it. "Gravitational lensing" can only be a name of a phenomenon and is completely unrelated to its cause and theory because it is only apparent data relates to some yet unexplained abberation, piled high upon a million others.
>>17082439>Liar. The previous post claims the data is the test of so called matching. It is a test. Note how that is a different word than "true". You call be a liar but cannot quote the post where I said it.>data isnt an explanation Data allows you to test different explanations, model or theories in physics. You can reject some based on whether or not they fit the data. Models predicting entirely new effects is a pretty strong test.>How would you remove the Sun to test if the effect is still there or not?You wait 6 months of the Earth to be on the other side of it's orbit, and hence the stars are no longer behind the Sun. Their positions can be measured without deflection.>How come you stated an observation of some apparent phenomenon is an explanation of it. "Gravitational lensing" can only be a name of a phenomenon and is completely unrelated to its cause and theory because it is only apparent data relates to some yet unexplained aberration, piled high upon a million others.But it's not "completely unrelated" since the phenomenon was only observed after it was predicted from theory. If the deflection is not caused by gravitational lensing, it will only be discovered by testing the model (GR) against data.
>>17081031Energy isn't real, it is just a kind of currency to relate things things with each other as they interact. It says that, evidently, there is "something" that doesn't change in a system during a transformation or interaction, its value remains the same, as other things change. The energy formulas describe how things relate to each other while using "energy" as something other that doesn't change in that process. Eg. You buy groceries, you get goods, the seller loses them, that's visible, but there's something the seller gets and you lose, and that's money. Its total between you remains the same. There's something invisible that stays the same in natural processes too. Trees may have a soul (because the word is undefined) but it's not capable of reasoning.
