@wrong side: Information is information, no matter how far back in time you view it. E.g. stretch out your hand and look at it. Did you know that you are looking at how your hand looked like in the past, albeit only a tiny fraction of a second in the past. But, even though you are looking into the past, the information is still there so your brain deduces that it is viewing your hand. Or, do you doubt the existence of your hand too? Likewise, when we view the Sun, we are not looking at it as it is now, but as it was just over 8 minutes ago. Again, we can deduce that the Sun exists because, even though we can only view a past version of it, the information (light waves including ultraviolet, infrared and everything in between, magneticism, gravitational effect, etc) is still there.

@Denis McClean: Or that our theories of gravity – Einstein’s general theory of relativity and Newton’s inverse square law, need modification to reflect the observations, in line with the scientific method.

@wrong side: I believe Dark Matter’s

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: Whatever that has to do with ‘invisible’ dark matter that, as the quote said, is ‘inferred’, from 65 million light years away, only you can know! It often seems to me that an awful lot of this type of science is just words that make sense to those using them, but really don’t add up to anything concrete. So we see things with a time delay, but we still see them. We don’t ‘infer’ their existence!

@wrong side: Sure, and they also tell us there is ‘Dark Energy’ whatever that is supposed to be.

@wrong side: As I said in another comment below, you cannot see wind. You can only observe its effects on its surrounding environment. A phenomenon known as wind is simply inferred from observing how it affects things like leaves, water, etc. Likewise, while we can’t see dark matter, we can observe its effects on surrounding observable phenomena. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

@Johnny Bellew: you don’t know what dark energy is, Johnny, because you never bothered to look it up. There is a wealth of information on both dark energy and dark matter readily available for all and sundry. Stop rejoicing in ignorance. You’re just making yourself look lazy when the answers you seek are available on the same device you used to post that comment.

@Denis McClean:

I’m not a scientist so I’m actually finding it hard to get my head around at the moment but you might actually help me a little here.I think the logical question is why are the stars not flying out of DF2?

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: Brian, stretch your hand back and then slam it into your face as hard as you can. The pain you experience is from a past event that you can no longer influence. Now repeat the process continually and enjoy the enlightenment.

@Jimmy Ryan: These guys are bluffing and act more like echo chambers for theorists.

We are on a galactic carousel so some of the stars you see are in front, some behind, some closer to the Galactic centre and further out than we are. If you were on a normal carousel you would see the same thing so as soon as you give some attention to this you can forget the ‘big bang’ nonsense which tries to equate time with distance.

Pubs are open today!

@wrong side: They are making it up as they go along that’s what a hypothesis is, observations confirm or deny the hypothesis. The only truth in the universe is mathematics just because we have found 1 galaxy without dark matter doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Its fairly obvious there is more “matter” in the universe than we can see. If I punch you in the back of the head you know something hit you, just because you cant see it doesnt mean something isnt there. Just the baba jesus

@Gerald Kelleher: 1) When you make a claim, you should be able to prove it. So, prove that these guys are bluffing. 2) You don’t understand the article at all seeing as you are talking about our place in our galaxy while the article is talking about a completely separate galaxy altogether. 3) Time is related to distance (or space) and this has been demonstrably proven. Even a lay person such as yourself can easily prove it. If time and space were not related, then everything, from the clock on your wall, the speedometer in your car to GPS, satellite communication, etc would not be possible.

@Alfred Pennyworth: That kinda make sense.

Does the 1 galaxy without dark matter (assuming it exists) now suggest that there is another type of matter at play, let’s call it super dark matter? Should we now infer super dark matter?

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: Sit your ass on a carousel Brian and you will see some of the horses are in front, some behind and some closer to the centre than the others. Now apply it to the local stars in relation to our solar system and the Galactic centre.

Say goodbye to the mental fluff of ‘big bang’.

@Gerald Kelleher: Wow. You highlighted your own stupidity and ignorance there, Gerald. Read this slowly, please: the article is not talking about our position within our galaxy; it is talking about the composition of a completely different galaxy. Now, when you’ve that done explain how, and prove that, the scientists are bluffing. Finally, explain how a speedometer works and then try telling me there is no relation between time and space.

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: The theorists make idiots of themselves by trying to make timekeeping look like time and it has been that way since Sir Isaac tried to define a timekeeping facility called the Equation of Time for as absolute/relative time

“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions…The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter.” Principia

In the early 20th century they made a song and dance about this called relativity without actually knowing what Newton was doing even though I do.

If all the theorists were put together in a room for twenty years they still wouldn’t be able to do what is fairly easy and straightforward for those who want to enjoy astronomy .

@Gerald Kelleher: I honestly think you’re insane, Gerald. You go off on such crazy tangents about things completely unrelated to the topic. The topic is the composition of a particular galaxy, and not what Isaac Newton or other scientists observed or theorised about rotation. Why are you completely incapable of sticking to a topic?

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: The theorists in the beginning of the 20th century hadn’t a clue what Isaac did and how he used timekeeping facilities like the Equation of Time -

“This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception.” Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

The astrophysical airheads don’t have a balls notion how the Equation of Time factors into the ‘scientific method’ which appeared to give Sir Isaac the result that predicting astronomical events is the same as predicting experimental results -

“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun…. for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun.” Newton

The first guy in this thread was right, astrophysics is based on conjuring up fantasies on fantasies , illusions on illusions as announcing them as facts of importance. The main thing is that 300 year rampage through astronomy has a beginning that can be explained whether people care to know it or not.

@Guy Incognito: and on the 8th day he created a galaxy without dark matter…

@Patrick Sage: Who said anything about atheists? You do know one of the largest organisations involved in scientific and astronomical inquiry is the Roman Catholic Church, right?

@Patrick Sage: well that’s the great thing about the scientific method, theories keep getting refined as more data becomes available.
As opposed to your approach: “This all happened by magic. The end.”

@Guy Incognito: so he created billions of galaxies,with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stars just for us?A small tiny planet in an ordinary galaxy.Ignorance is truly bliss..Before you comment again open you tube and type in size comparisons in the universe….

@Patrick Sage: This isn’t a story though. Its a scientific ecdience-based discussion.

@Patrick Sage: it also tells us to rape and pillage.
So now the Earth is flat again!

@Patrick Sage: I understand why people today assume Christianity had no astronomical heritage when it counted among its congregation some of the leading innovators in history . The early Church did try to prevent its participants from running away with themselves using poetic language but even today that advice is ignored to the loss of Christianity and its natural spirit for investigating the celestial arena -

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.” Augustine

I honestly think the others mocking Christianity on your account are much better due to what they themselves understand of astronomy, its methods and insights but at least they know it is nothing like what you profess.

@Guy Incognito: The Dark Lord,from the Lord of the Rings?

@Guy Incognito: You guys make this too easy sometimes.

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: You been taken to school Alan

@Jonathan Nolan: You have to prove God exists, but you can ‘infer’ that something invisible and 65 million years away exists and it’s science! Having their cake and eating it!

@Jonathan Nolan: I don’t know if God exists or not. What I do know is that currently there is no way to prove or disprove God’s existence. There are no scientific equations or theories that either allow for, or negate, the existence of God. If God exists and has a direct effect on the universe, then those effects would be measurable. Based on current understandings of the workings of the universe there are two possible scenarios: God does not exist, hence the lack of any measurable effects on the workings of the universe; God does exist but outside our universe and chooses not to interfere in any way, including “saving” people, speaking with people, etc. which again would explain the lack of any measurable effects on the workings of the universe.

@Brian Ó Dálaigh: “If God exists and has a direct effect on the universe, then those effects would be measurable.” Erm … life? Consciousness? Etc, etc…

@wrong side: life and consciousness can be measured and given purely scientific explanations which account for all measurements (excluding the unmeasurable philosophical question of why). The existence of life and consciousness neither proves nor disproves God’s existence.

@wrong side: Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

@Michael Garvey: Is there a more detailed article anywhere on it do you know ? But still easily readable to us non scientists ??,

@Michael Hunt: “In fact, gravity itself is just a theory. It has never been proven by any experimental evidence.”

What people call the ‘theory of gravity’ is really the beginning of the so-called scientific method which tried to scale up experimental science to the motions of planets through an opinion on attraction – the Earth attracts an apple, the moon attracts the tides, the Earth attracts the moon and the Sun attracts the Earth.

“Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.” Newton

So how do you equate the fall of an apple with orbital motion and then call its the laws of motion , the laws of physics or some other description ? – the answer is that nobody knew, at least not up until now.

“The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results.” Rouse Ball 1906

Nobody is going to ask how it was done but they can be certain it ain’t no achievement although it allowed theorists to run amok with astronomy for the last 300 years.

( I have a boxes of dark matter for sale – €500 a box)

@Michael Hunt: I think you are confusing what scientific theory means.. the theory of relativity is NOT just a theory.. it’s a mathematical explanation of observable and repeatable experimentation.

@Edward Malone: That sounds really cool as I have read about spacetime when it first emerged -

“‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space”

Have things changed ?.

@Catherine Sims: Here is quite a good article on the topic https://www.livescience.com/62151-galaxy-dark-matter-physics.html?utm_source=notification

@SteoG: Here is a good book on relativity that could be found on any bookshelf in the 19th century -

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

People following science fantasy as fact is really,really unhealthy, people making the effort to understand how a formal notion of ‘time travel’ was proposed as fact and being amazed at the sheer scale of manipulation would never want to listen to a theorist again.

@Gerald Kelleher: You are one of the most seriously silly clowns I have ever come across. You put down the hard work of others and spout unintelligible quasi religious pseudo intellectual nonsense as some sort of rebuttal. Fair enough if you had something to fuel the debate, but you don’t. All you have is a nonsensical arrogant attitude and a bee in your bonnet with real people who are gifted intellectuals working for the greater good. It is great that you are rightly proud of your ability to produce heaps of mind numbing unintelligible steaming excrement here on a daily basis. No matter how high you pile it Gerald, all you produce is crap. I am sure your audience of adoring fans may disagree with me.