[ExI] dark matter (and -- shhhh! -- the F**** p-dox)

Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 22:21:13 UTC 2008

Here's the deal.

The talk about dark matter uses terms like "non-baryonic", and
otherwise asserts that dark matter is distinctly different from
regular matter.  But I have yet to find any evidence for the
it-ain't-regular-matter presumption.  The entire case, as far as I
have been able to determine, comes from the fact that the "matter" in
question is "dark".  That, unlike "regular" matter, it can't be seen;
that it doesn't emit any light or other EM; that it doesn't do what
"regular" matter does, ie form cosmic dust clouds, stars, planets,
galaxies, etc.  The only actual, substantive, tangible thing that it
does -- and which is the totality of evidence (that I have been able
to find) establishing it's existence -- is its gravitational effect.
And as far as I can tell, this is just, well.., you know, "regular"
gravity.  Not some special sort of dark matter gravity.

So what's up?  Did I miss something?  Do any of youse guys know
something more about this "dark stuff" -- other than that its dark?
Something that would rise to the level of actual evidence that "dark
matter" is not just regular matter that is well, you know,... dark?

[Shhhhhh.  Avert you eye's.  Scroll past this next bit real quick
like.  Don't read it.  And don't say anything if you do.]

In discussions of the Fermi paradox Eugen L and John Clark have
forcefully taken the position that if technologically adept
space-faring civilizations were abundant in the universe, then at
least one would have invented Von Neuman probes, and that we would
"see"  evidence in the form of cosmic engineering.  At the same time
Robert B., in related discussions re cosmic engineering, ie
computronium-mediated matrioshka brains, Dyson spheres, etc, has made
the point that, for most efficient energy use, a prime location for
such structures would be in the darkness between stars.  There, the
outermost of the nested shells --each shell harvests the "waste"
energy radiated from the inner adjacent shell -- that last, outermost
shell dumps its waste heat into the cosmos at a temperature as close
as feasible to the cosmic background radiation.  Wouldn't such
engineered structures, so located, be exceedingly dark?  So is it
utterly unreasonable to point to the so-called "dark matter",
currently calculated to comprise 85-90 percent of the mass of the
universe, and say, "There's your engineered universe, guys.  Complete
with 10-15 percent "green" space."?

I don't know.  My pre-singularity chimpy brain can't figure it out.  I
even put on  a snazzy white lab coat and stood near an array of
brushed-aluminum-fronted lab instruments with digital displays that
made little beeping sounds, but it didn't help.

Enhance me, please.

Best, Jeff Davis

     Aspiring Transhuman / Delusional Ape
           (Take your pick)
                 Nicq MacDonald

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list