0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by gsmollinI think dark matter is already confirmed. It has been found in galaxies filled with stars. What is fascinating here, is that there can be radio galaxies. What we may be seeing is a relic, a fossil galaxy from the "dark age" of the universe, before star formation began. This could be very important, and not just about dark matter.
quote:Originally posted by gsmollinOBTW the "darkeron" bit is just a joke, son.
quote:Originally posted by chimera... what does it actually DO, besides helping to balance the books gravitywise ...
quote:Originally posted by chimera...I highly respect what I've seen so far from gsmollin's approach, but he has no ground to stand on here, since there is no empirical data. It's all conjecture, and more a matter of consensus, or lack of it.
quote:Originally posted by neilep...and what it might feel like ?..
quote:Originally posted by gsmollinChimera,I'm having some trouble understanding what your point is. You are clearly a nay-sayer to dark matter, and that does not bother me. I don't understand what your take on this would be. Maybe you could elucidate.The link you provided was not too much help. It is about calibration issues for interpreting CBR data. I can understand there will be such problems, and it is nothing new. I don't see the authors disputing the existence of dark matter, so much as disputing its form. There is still debate over whether the dark matter is cold or hot.The analogy (in that article) with the Ptolemic theory of the universe was pretty lame. In the beginning, the Ptolemic explanation was good. It provided adequate structure for many centuries. The bad rap the Ptolemic theory gets is because it was so successful for so long that it became dogma. As better observation came along, and better theories were developed, they were suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope did not want to hear that he was not at the center of the universe.The replacement of one scientific theory by a better one, is a natural progression. A few years ago, the fundamental particles were the proton, neutron, and electron. Now we have different theories, and different fundamental particles. Years from now there will be better theories with perhaps different fundamentals. The empirical support for these theories will contain both direct and indirect evidence. Both types are good. All this is called scientific progress. There is no shame in an old theory being found incomplete, or overly complicated, and replaced by a simpler, better explanation. The only shame is in not keeping an open mind, and sticking to an old favorite explanation as dogma.
quote:Originally posted by gsmollin Physical theories are almost always "ordered" to fit a bill. So we have dark matter. There are numerous candidates for it, but we don't have a definite answer. One thing seems sure- it does not react electromagnetically. It seems to be gravitational only, although weak force has not been ruled out. With such weak forces involved, there is little chance of direct observation in the near future, except gravitationally. If it isn't productive, then I invite the alternate explanation that answers so many other questions as well.