As I understand it, dark matter is our best guess at explaining an observation of mass via gravitational lensing and other effects where there is not enough visible matter to account for it. What I never see mentioned, and perhaps there's a good reason for this unbeknownst to me, is the possibility that this phenomenon exists independent from any matter, just as we do observe it. It seems to suggest that without matter space time would be flat across the entire universe. Why isn't it possible that space time is inherently imperfect, with it's own curvatures independent of mass? I've never seen this question asked, or answered. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, though. Can someone enlighten me?

"The origin of the cursive method is associated with practical advantages of writing speed and infrequent pen lifting to accommodate the limitations of the quill. Quills are fragile, easily broken, and will spatter unless used properly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... Modern pens, obviously, suffer none of these drawbacks. The idea that writing in cursive is somehow quicker with modern pens is dubious at best. The real reason cursive stuck around so long more likely lies in our tendency for traditionalism. I would guess the generation of teachers who are eschewing the instruction of cursive in favor of typing skills had themselves been forced to learn cursive in their youth and likely thought "I will never need to use this outside of school." They would have been correct with that assertion.

We are completely and totally fucked as a species if we do not figure out how to live independently of Earth. That means manned spaceflights. That means colonization of the Moon, Mars, and possibly elsewhere. The sooner we begin this work the better chance our species has for survival. The trouble is getting our current anti-science government to believe it.

As I understand it in order to sustain catastrophic, life eradicating damage from a GRB you need to be looking directly down the "barrel of the gun" so to speak, or rather directly in the line of fire emanating from the star's poles. This forms a fairly narrow beam of intense energy that decreases with distance. It doesn't seem that likely to me that 90% of life supporting planets in the universe would find themselves in just this predicament.

Who seriously expected the physics of a marble rolling on a rubber sheet to exactly match the physics of a planetary body in orbit? Who thought the analogy was ever meant to make that statement? It's still a pretty good analogy for giving a layperson the gist of how gravity works, and I seriously doubt it was ever meant to do any more than just that.

Death is not a bug, it's a feature. It's the only way we get rid of old assholes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I28e0IqIgPc -- KRTV out of Great Falls, Montana.

Pretty impossible to say if the planet is habitable, but at 4 times the Earth's mass it definitely isn't Earth-like. The search continues...