At 04:51 PM 8/21/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote:
<http://www.science20.com/news_articles/lots_dark_matter_near_sun_says_computer_model-92910>http://www.science20.com/news_articles/lots_dark_matter_near_sun_says_computer_model-92910
Waiting for Abd to confirm what this is or isn't...
Okay, I looked. I confirm that this is an article on Science 2.0,
containing speculative interpretation of a computer model. The model
was based on study of the motion of thousands of (stated in one
paragraph) or more than 400 (stated in another) orange K dwarf stars
in the vicinity of the Sun. From this, it appears to me that they
inferred the total mass in the vicinity of the sun. The article is
incoherent, parts seem unintelligible or self-contradictory. It's
hard to find good help.
"Dark matter" is a name for "stuff we don't know about." The
reearchers are reportedly saying that they are "99% confident" that
there is dark matter near the sun, but then the text manages to
confuse this totally.
Then the article explains that one of the coauthors of the study
said, "If dark matter is a fundamental particle, billions of these
particles will have passed through your body by the time your finish
reading this article."
What if I'm a speed reader? What if I'm not reading the article? What
if I'm so offended by "your finish reading" that I never finish, I
pass away in a fit of grammar frenzy? Ah, what if dark matter is
really tiny so that there are trillions and trillions of them.
However, quoting the same source, we are told:
"Knowing the local properties of dark matter is the key to revealing
just what kind of particle it consists of."
I couldn't have guessed that knowing the properties of a thing would
help reveal what it is.
It *really is hard* to find good help.
Next question?
