Dark Matter: Hidden Mass Confounds Science, Inspires Revolutionary Theories

Reuters ^ | 08 January 2002 | Andrew Chaikin

[PatrickHenry]

Read the whole article here: HERE.

[PatrickHenry]

Cosmology bump.

[boris]

Please let us be politically correct and refer to it as "matter of color". Or maybe "matter of no color"; I dunno.

--Boris

[PatrickHenry]

Another bump. No need to flag the flat-earthers. They'll find the thread sooner or later.

[Colosis]

Interesting, this dark matter stuff. It's invisible, never been seen and doesn't radiate energy but it has a mass. Until there is tangible proof of what it is, then we can't rule anything out.

[beckett]

Read the whole article here: HERE.

Which is it? Here? Or Here?

[Salgak]

That assumes that it IS matter. While the most likely candidate for "dark matter" is, in fact, matter, there has been speculation on some exotic high-energy states which would act as matter from a gravitational standpoint. I can't claim to understand the underlying physics or its' mathematical expression, but a buddy of mine at NASA-Goddard who does astrophysics was telling me about it a month or three ago. . .

[OBAFGKM]

!@#!#@%!!

It was luminiferous ether -- not "luminous," and it had nothing whatsoever to do with gravity.

[linear]

Great post.

Can someone tell me why it has to be gravity, and not some other attractive force?

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[epluribus_2]

well, kindof, since it was thought that waves in the ether pushed the planets around...

[beckett]

"The universe is there to make you humble," says [pysicist Chris] Impey. "When I go observing I’m ready to be surprised. I don’t always figure we’re at the answers, or around the corner from the answers."

Impey uses a word which I have emphasized for years on these threads. Humility, however, although a staple of scientific thought until, say, Einstein's death in 1955, is almost never discernible among today's hardcore materialists, either here on FR or in the wider scientific community. They actually think they know it all.

[VadeRetro]

A good read, but it was luminiferous (not luminous = "light emitting") ether and it was the medium light waves supposedly wave in. I don't usually hear it connected with gravity.

Another point:

Within spiral galaxies, individual stars and clouds of gas are orbiting faster than they should if they were only being affected by the gravity of the galaxy's visible matter.

I have to assume that this estimate includes the presumed black hole at the center of the galaxy, although such would not (by definition of a BH) be "visible matter." No article ever reassures me on this point, however, and this one is no exception. A Black Hole at the middle would deepen the gravity well enough to make the orbits seem to be defying Kepler's Laws. I'm left to guess that astronomers are allowing for this and still can't account for the behavior.

[VadeRetro]

It was luminiferous ether -- not "luminous," and it had nothing whatsoever to do with gravity.

You beat me. From your screenie, you might be a good one to ask about my question in post 14. Are astronomers allowing for at least one black hole per galaxy and still stumped?

[elephantlips]

Ether, dark matter, bubble gum, there has got to be some explanation for the endless multitude of things we do not know or understand. We'll grasp at any theory, stretch any thought beyond its limits then we'll introduce it into the schools and teach it as fact, thusly perpetuating our ignorance and encouraging the status quo. You'll never hear of a course called "The Latest Speculation on Matters of the Origin of the Universe," or whatever. That would reflect the fact that the scientists know nothing more than a child on the street. It is definitely possible to be educated beyond your intelligence.

[mlo]

You either hypothesize that Newton's law is wrong, and that our knowledge of the gravity theory is incomplete. Or, you hypothesize a fundamental microscopic particle that has never been detected in any physics lab, whose properties are only constrained by these astronomical observations.

I'm not advocating it, but there is a third logical possibility. They could be underestimating the mass of the luminous matter.

[dubyagee]

Another bump. No need to flag the flat-earthers. They'll find the thread sooner or later.

Copy that....lurking as always....

[Uncle George]

Yes, is it not amazing how far out in left field science will go to avoid our inability to think any higher than mere mortal man? Humility is the perfect word, yes.

[Polonius]

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that because scientists don't know everything, they know nothing?