How can I learn more about Dark matter? Is there any books

>>9133355
...... you know its called 'dark' in the sense of unknown rather than appearance right?

>>9133362
No, you brainlet. It's called "dark matter" because it's dark. A dark purple, to be precise. Much darker than the OP's pic. It emits a frequency that only certain scientific microphones can detect.

>>9133376
I really cant understand where you get this infomation from? Source?

>>9133384
>?
Try going to class and reading some books, for a change.

>>9133355
>How can I learn more about Dark matter? Is there any books about the subject?
I would suggest you first improve you'r grammar. "Are there any books?" not "Is there any books?"

To answer your question: no, there are not any books on antimatter because astro-physicists know jack-shit about it besides its ability to bend light.

>>9133393
I have that why I know that dark matter has never been observed? Its much like the naming of the dark ages (Spoiler Alert) which wasn't dark, but I'm guessing your American and therefore know little about this use of this language

>>9133384
The bait was so obvious, and you fell for it anyway. How do you manage to tie your shoes each morning?

>>9133395
I'm French actually

>>9133355
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/DarkMatter2015

>>9133400
And an idiot

>>9133405
Read a book for once.

>>9133397
With my hands?

>>9133406
Just surrender

>>9133418
>Ameritards can't into purple dark matter
Do you even pay attention during lectures?

>>9133425
Want to try that again?

BUT IN THE END IT ISN'T EVEN MATER-R-R-R-R

>>9133439
Google is a few keystrokes away.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

File: 1495289563375.png (23KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 240x240px

What makes dark matter the preferred theory vs MOND?

>>9133394
Antimatter ≠ Dark matter

>>9133446
"Dark matter has never been directly observed"
Do you read any further than the first few words?

MOND is cool but all we know that lambda-cdm seems to be the most accurate model.

File: Selection_019.png (214KB, 1330x613px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1330x613px

>>9133454
I don't understand how you're so ignorant about dark matter. It's actually common knowledge that it's dark purple. Even normies know it. It shows up, often erroneously, in sci-fi movies, but they get the visual representation correct usually

>>9133465
Well done, but it probably inferns to a method used to identify matter through other means, its just changing the colour to something our eyes can interpret

>>9133465
Everything in movies must be true, and even if it weren't it would never not properly give infomation

>>9133472
Most likely it is seen through special equipment

>>9133465
Can you please stop fucking up Wikipedia

>>9133484
>actually using wikipedia for anything ever

>>9133488
>using ipv6

File: Screenshot(26).png (91KB, 1560x772px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1560x772px

>>9133484

File: 1464302701905.png (139KB, 385x274px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 385x274px

>>9133355
It's pretty easy. Just imagine that there are a bunch of math equations that describe a lot about what we observe about the universe, but ONLY if we include some extra variable that we pull out of our ass. That's dark matter (and dark energy too). They're just numbers we stuff into our physics math to make it "work", because god damn it, I've already worked too hard and spent too much money on my PhD to not have my thesis approved so I'm just going to make shit up and call it revolutionary.

>>9133513
They're dark numbers though. Dark math. Purple math.

>http://www.purplemath.com/

>>9133453
I meant dark matter.
Sorry.

>>9133513
sauce?

>>9133513
Well, yes, we need dark matter for our equations to work.

Because our equations predict how centrifuge works, and watching galaxies rotate it seems something had to give, be it the mass they have or our BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.

So mass it is, because we'll be damned if we misunderstood centrifuge.

I lie of course. We tried using other laws of physics, but those gave even more ridiculous results that our very eyes (with the help of telescopes) confirmed not to be true.

>>9133513
sauce

>>9133447
MOND isn't a theory, it just prescribes empirical corrections which were selected purely because the fit the data. MOND doesn't tell you why the corrections have that form, it doesn't answer any questions. With dark matter however you can simulate to find out why it behaves as it does. Secondly it fails on large scales, MOND requires dark matter in clusters and fails cosmological tests.

>>9133465
It takes a special kind of autism to actually edit the Wikipedia article instead of editing the html in browser.