> I heard in our Universe there is Matter & anti Matter.
>
> Then there is Dark Matter.
>
> Are Dark Matter and Anti Matter seen by Scientist?
>
> Whare are they made of do they have neutrons/ protons/ electrons?
>
> If not are they too made of Quarks?
>
> Is Dark Matter and Anti-Matter simmilar?
>
> Will Dark Matter and Matter Collide give out energy?
>
> Will Anti-Matter and Matter Collide will give out energy?
>
> Do Dark Matter has mass and gravity?
>
> Do Anti-Matter has mass and gravity?
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com

> According to your definition of evidence we can know very
> little.
>

>> Joseki359 /
>> Life here could have been initialized by the great Gazoo of
>> Flinstone fame. There is no evidence of that either.

>
> I don't have the time to answer your previous comments until
> sometime in the next few days, but I will make one quick comment
> on what I think is your understanding. I could be wrong so if I
> am I trust you will correct me.
>
> It seems you believe that science must directly observe a
> phenomenon before we can conclude anything about it. This is
> simply wrong, what we need to do is make predictions that can
> differentiate between two hypotheses, based on effects of the
> phenomenon that can be tested. As an extremely simplistic and
> rather poor analogy, but one I believe conveys the essence of my
> argument I put out the following.
>
> If a bicycle weaves a trail through an earthen path we do not
> have to directly observe the bicycle to know that it was there
> and what its likely structure would be, we simply have to
> predict, based on the evidence left behind what possible type of
> contraption it is. We can even bring in other lines of evidence
> such as patterns left by motorcycles, tricycles, cars, trucks
> and unicycles. Even if we have never seen a bicycle before we
> can make predictions that it is a two wheeled contraption, with
> wheels of a specific width and tread, that it is front steered,
> which direction it was headed and even whether it was
> accelerating or decelerating.
>
> Much can be learned by traces left by the phenomenon. This is
> how we learned of the structure of atoms, structure of DNA, the
> existence of subatomic particles and even quantum effects.
>
> Direct observation is simply not necessary and is seldom seen in
> science.
>
> Nor do we have to have 100%% confidence in a theory to conclude
> it is the best explanation.