|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
Hi. With this edit you added your signature into the body of an article. Signatures are intended to allow users to easily identify who said what on talk pages. In an actual article any text someone adds can and will be altered by future edits to the article. The history tab at the top of the page is available for viewing who edited what and when on an article. If you think about how thousands of edits can be made to a single article, you can see why signing every additon you make would be impractical. Whenever you edit an actual article please do not include your signature, but by all means sign all your comments in discussions and on talk pages. I have included a boilerplate welcome message above so you can have quick links to various policy pages that will help you in editing Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page by clicking the word "talk" in my signature and clicking "new section" at the top of my talk page. Thanks and happy editing. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the Bullet Cluster article to reflect the fact that MOG is a minority view. However I do not believe it should not be mentioned at all. While most people agree with the dark matter theory, it is a *theory*, it is not conclusively and indisputably proven, and therefore wikipedia should reflect this rather than represent this theory as if it were a proven fact. The author of MOG isn't some conspiracy lunatic, he has a PHD in physics, and the Royal Astronomical Society saw it fit to publish his paper, so he has some credibility. Unless you want to argue the RAS is also run by a bunch of crackpots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- RE: "While most people agree with the dark matter theory, it is a *theory*, it is not conclusively and indisputably proven, and therefore wikipedia should reflect this rather than represent this theory as if it were a proven fact."
- O RLY? You mean like the theory of gravity? Or the general theory of relativity? Like most laymen (and especially creationists), you seem to have a misconception of the term "theory". When scientists use the term "theory", it has a different meaning to normal everyday use by the general public; the scientific definition of the term "theory", according to the American Heritage Science Dictionary, is: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Therefore, scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena that are built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.
- RE: "The author of MOG isn't some conspiracy lunatic, he has a PHD in physics, and the Royal Astronomical Society saw it fit to publish his paper, so he has some credibility."
- Irrelevant. Being in possession of a Ph.D does not automatically mean that what the person says is true and that it should be taken seriously. There is a thin line between insanity and genius, and there have been many cases of men (and it's usually men) with Ph.Ds who have gone round the bend in later life. Furthermore, Moffat also believes (like creationist twats!) that the speed of light was much faster in the past – which is in violation of the mass–energy equivalence principle. Therefore, in my opinion, he is an unmitigated crank! — IVAN3MAN (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)