[ExI] Dark matter
atymes at gmail.com
Tue Feb 19 23:54:55 UTC 2013
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>> And? People keep saying that as if it's good reason for disbelief,
>> but the data - such as that Hubble shot - seems to substantiate
>> that there's a lot more ordinary matter than we have yet seen.
> It's not called 'dark' because it is not radiating. We can see dust
> clouds because dust blocks or reflects light.
How much mass is hidden behind the dust clouds?
> But we can see right through dark matter. 'Dark matter' doesn't
> radiate light OR absorb light (or react with any electro-magnetic
> radiation). We can only infer it's existence from seeing gravitational
> effects, so we can calculate the required missing mass.
Consider again the observational evidence: we aren't
seeing everything that *does* radiate light.
> Nobody yet knows what it is.
Right, but all these strange explanations keep getting
offered and talked about, and the simple solution does
not seem to be getting much consideration.
More information about the extropy-chat