[ExI] Dark matter

[Adrian Tymes]

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.