Dark Matter...WTH?

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Hi guys, </p><p>I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of <em>creative </em>theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks.</p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Hi guys, </p><p>I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of <em>creative </em>theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks.</p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Hi guys, </p><p>I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of <em>creative </em>theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks.</p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Hi guys, </p><p>I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of <em>creative </em>theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks.</p>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hintuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere</p><p>Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>That would be my first assumption as well. I keep asking myself "Do they really have everything down to a science?". Did they measure the angular velocities of the galaxies correctly? Could there be a problem in our calculations of red shift? Did the universe really have to coalesce into galaxies a planetary system as fast as they theorize? And honestly I don't know.</p><p> I am not close enough to the action to know if any of this is true or not and I'm nowhere near enough "in the know" to check the equations and data myself. So I'm in the sam boat as you. I'm always cautious to believe anything outright during these times where a new theory for everything pops up every week or so all more complex then the last. I think the great ideas should be simple. </p><p>It is usually these simple insights that make the most difference and uncover the deepest secrets, but great minds like that that can make these insights only pop up every hundred years or so, but then again I believe this is a golden age for physics, perhaps the largest ferver to understand the actual workings of our universe in history. The only thing I fear is that with computers and more advanced intruments we will be able to measure more variables to greater extents then ever before and this means that there are more possibilities for error as well. So before physicist in the spirit of the decade create new "earth-shattering" theories I hope they have thier facts straight.</p><p>Hey, but what do I know Im not in the "in crowd" this is just my opinion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hintuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere</p><p>Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>That would be my first assumption as well. I keep asking myself "Do they really have everything down to a science?". Did they measure the angular velocities of the galaxies correctly? Could there be a problem in our calculations of red shift? Did the universe really have to coalesce into galaxies a planetary system as fast as they theorize? And honestly I don't know.</p><p> I am not close enough to the action to know if any of this is true or not and I'm nowhere near enough "in the know" to check the equations and data myself. So I'm in the sam boat as you. I'm always cautious to believe anything outright during these times where a new theory for everything pops up every week or so all more complex then the last. I think the great ideas should be simple. </p><p>It is usually these simple insights that make the most difference and uncover the deepest secrets, but great minds like that that can make these insights only pop up every hundred years or so, but then again I believe this is a golden age for physics, perhaps the largest ferver to understand the actual workings of our universe in history. The only thing I fear is that with computers and more advanced intruments we will be able to measure more variables to greater extents then ever before and this means that there are more possibilities for error as well. So before physicist in the spirit of the decade create new "earth-shattering" theories I hope they have thier facts straight.</p><p>Hey, but what do I know Im not in the "in crowd" this is just my opinion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hintuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere</p><p>Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>That would be my first assumption as well. I keep asking myself "Do they really have everything down to a science?". Did they measure the angular velocities of the galaxies correctly? Could there be a problem in our calculations of red shift? Did the universe really have to coalesce into galaxies a planetary system as fast as they theorize? And honestly I don't know.</p><p> I am not close enough to the action to know if any of this is true or not and I'm nowhere near enough "in the know" to check the equations and data myself. So I'm in the sam boat as you. I'm always cautious to believe anything outright during these times where a new theory for everything pops up every week or so all more complex then the last. I think the great ideas should be simple. </p><p>It is usually these simple insights that make the most difference and uncover the deepest secrets, but great minds like that that can make these insights only pop up every hundred years or so, but then again I believe this is a golden age for physics, perhaps the largest ferver to understand the actual workings of our universe in history. The only thing I fear is that with computers and more advanced intruments we will be able to measure more variables to greater extents then ever before and this means that there are more possibilities for error as well. So before physicist in the spirit of the decade create new "earth-shattering" theories I hope they have thier facts straight.</p><p>Hey, but what do I know Im not in the "in crowd" this is just my opinion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hintuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere</p><p>Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>That would be my first assumption as well. I keep asking myself "Do they really have everything down to a science?". Did they measure the angular velocities of the galaxies correctly? Could there be a problem in our calculations of red shift? Did the universe really have to coalesce into galaxies a planetary system as fast as they theorize? And honestly I don't know.</p><p> I am not close enough to the action to know if any of this is true or not and I'm nowhere near enough "in the know" to check the equations and data myself. So I'm in the sam boat as you. I'm always cautious to believe anything outright during these times where a new theory for everything pops up every week or so all more complex then the last. I think the great ideas should be simple. </p><p>It is usually these simple insights that make the most difference and uncover the deepest secrets, but great minds like that that can make these insights only pop up every hundred years or so, but then again I believe this is a golden age for physics, perhaps the largest ferver to understand the actual workings of our universe in history. The only thing I fear is that with computers and more advanced intruments we will be able to measure more variables to greater extents then ever before and this means that there are more possibilities for error as well. So before physicist in the spirit of the decade create new "earth-shattering" theories I hope they have thier facts straight.</p><p>Hey, but what do I know Im not in the "in crowd" this is just my opinion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[Doc_Grey]

The thing is, the science and theory are solid.&nbsp;I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it.

 

[Doc_Grey]

The thing is, the science and theory are solid.&nbsp;I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it.

 

[Doc_Grey]

The thing is, the science and theory are solid.&nbsp;I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it.

 

[Doc_Grey]

The thing is, the science and theory are solid.&nbsp;I don't doubt that dark matter exists. Perhaps when they indisputable create or observe a WIMP or a MACHO, etc, I'll be able to wrap my mind the rest of the way around it.

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi guys, I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of creative theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>First suggestion.&nbsp; Burn your copies of Discover and subscribe to Scientific American.&nbsp; Better yet, if you happen to have been inducted into Sigma Xi, subscribe to The American Scientist.&nbsp; Discover is OK, but they tend to sensationalize and distort a bit IMO.&nbsp;(Alright, I am sugar-coating it.&nbsp; I think Discover is generally only useful if you tear out the pages to start a fire in the wood stove.) &nbsp;The articles in Scientific American and particularly in The American Scientist are written by serious scientists who have deep knowledge of the subject matter. </p><p>Be aware that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are really fancy ways of saying "Beats the hell out of me."&nbsp; There is some recent observational data that supports the notion of dark matter and even some idea of how it is distributed.&nbsp; But it is still just a place holder.</p><p>As you noted the problem is that the rotation rates that are observed in the outer arms of spiral galaxies are faster than what can be justified on the basis of conventional theories of gravity and observed amount of mass in the galaxies.&nbsp; This has been a known problem for quite a while.&nbsp; Dark matter is one attempt to fashion an explanation.&nbsp; Another candidate (one that I really dislike) is MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) that is simply a curve fit alteration of the inverse square law of ordinary Newtonian gravity.&nbsp; The problem is the no one knows what dark matter is, although there are some candidates and no one has any rationale for why one ought to modify the inverse square law.&nbsp; So we have a place holder, "dark matter" to remind us that we don't know what is going on.</p><p>Dark energy is even a bit more shaky.&nbsp; In the late 1990's observations of type 1A supernovas suggested that the rate of expansion of the universe, thought to be decreasing, was actually increasing.&nbsp; All the theory up to that point would have had us believe that gravity was slowing the expansion down and the open question of the time was whether or not there was enough gravity from the mass in the universe to case the expansion to halt and the universe to re-collapse.&nbsp; Quite a revelation.</p><p>So Einstein's cosmological constant was resurrected and inserted into the field equations.&nbsp; A positive cosmological constant is effectively the same thing as dark energy.&nbsp; Dark energy is simply the "cause" of the cosmological constant.&nbsp; The problem is that nobody has the foggiest idea what it might be.&nbsp; It too is just a place holder to remind us that we are completely clueless about what is going on.&nbsp; </p><p>If dark matter and dark energy are your Achilles heel, you are in good shape and in very good company.&nbsp; NOBODY understands this stuff.</p><p>Here is a somewhat old but still viable tutorial on dark matter.&nbsp; It is directed at professional physicists, but you can profit from reading it.&nbsp; http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html&nbsp; There are other lectures by leading physicists available if you search the web.&nbsp; They will be better than what you get through a reporter from Discover.&nbsp; If you really figure out what is going on, don't keep it a secret.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi guys, I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of creative theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>First suggestion.&nbsp; Burn your copies of Discover and subscribe to Scientific American.&nbsp; Better yet, if you happen to have been inducted into Sigma Xi, subscribe to The American Scientist.&nbsp; Discover is OK, but they tend to sensationalize and distort a bit IMO.&nbsp;(Alright, I am sugar-coating it.&nbsp; I think Discover is generally only useful if you tear out the pages to start a fire in the wood stove.) &nbsp;The articles in Scientific American and particularly in The American Scientist are written by serious scientists who have deep knowledge of the subject matter. </p><p>Be aware that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are really fancy ways of saying "Beats the hell out of me."&nbsp; There is some recent observational data that supports the notion of dark matter and even some idea of how it is distributed.&nbsp; But it is still just a place holder.</p><p>As you noted the problem is that the rotation rates that are observed in the outer arms of spiral galaxies are faster than what can be justified on the basis of conventional theories of gravity and observed amount of mass in the galaxies.&nbsp; This has been a known problem for quite a while.&nbsp; Dark matter is one attempt to fashion an explanation.&nbsp; Another candidate (one that I really dislike) is MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) that is simply a curve fit alteration of the inverse square law of ordinary Newtonian gravity.&nbsp; The problem is the no one knows what dark matter is, although there are some candidates and no one has any rationale for why one ought to modify the inverse square law.&nbsp; So we have a place holder, "dark matter" to remind us that we don't know what is going on.</p><p>Dark energy is even a bit more shaky.&nbsp; In the late 1990's observations of type 1A supernovas suggested that the rate of expansion of the universe, thought to be decreasing, was actually increasing.&nbsp; All the theory up to that point would have had us believe that gravity was slowing the expansion down and the open question of the time was whether or not there was enough gravity from the mass in the universe to case the expansion to halt and the universe to re-collapse.&nbsp; Quite a revelation.</p><p>So Einstein's cosmological constant was resurrected and inserted into the field equations.&nbsp; A positive cosmological constant is effectively the same thing as dark energy.&nbsp; Dark energy is simply the "cause" of the cosmological constant.&nbsp; The problem is that nobody has the foggiest idea what it might be.&nbsp; It too is just a place holder to remind us that we are completely clueless about what is going on.&nbsp; </p><p>If dark matter and dark energy are your Achilles heel, you are in good shape and in very good company.&nbsp; NOBODY understands this stuff.</p><p>Here is a somewhat old but still viable tutorial on dark matter.&nbsp; It is directed at professional physicists, but you can profit from reading it.&nbsp; http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html&nbsp; There are other lectures by leading physicists available if you search the web.&nbsp; They will be better than what you get through a reporter from Discover.&nbsp; If you really figure out what is going on, don't keep it a secret.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi guys, I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of creative theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>First suggestion.&nbsp; Burn your copies of Discover and subscribe to Scientific American.&nbsp; Better yet, if you happen to have been inducted into Sigma Xi, subscribe to The American Scientist.&nbsp; Discover is OK, but they tend to sensationalize and distort a bit IMO.&nbsp;(Alright, I am sugar-coating it.&nbsp; I think Discover is generally only useful if you tear out the pages to start a fire in the wood stove.) &nbsp;The articles in Scientific American and particularly in The American Scientist are written by serious scientists who have deep knowledge of the subject matter. </p><p>Be aware that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are really fancy ways of saying "Beats the hell out of me."&nbsp; There is some recent observational data that supports the notion of dark matter and even some idea of how it is distributed.&nbsp; But it is still just a place holder.</p><p>As you noted the problem is that the rotation rates that are observed in the outer arms of spiral galaxies are faster than what can be justified on the basis of conventional theories of gravity and observed amount of mass in the galaxies.&nbsp; This has been a known problem for quite a while.&nbsp; Dark matter is one attempt to fashion an explanation.&nbsp; Another candidate (one that I really dislike) is MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) that is simply a curve fit alteration of the inverse square law of ordinary Newtonian gravity.&nbsp; The problem is the no one knows what dark matter is, although there are some candidates and no one has any rationale for why one ought to modify the inverse square law.&nbsp; So we have a place holder, "dark matter" to remind us that we don't know what is going on.</p><p>Dark energy is even a bit more shaky.&nbsp; In the late 1990's observations of type 1A supernovas suggested that the rate of expansion of the universe, thought to be decreasing, was actually increasing.&nbsp; All the theory up to that point would have had us believe that gravity was slowing the expansion down and the open question of the time was whether or not there was enough gravity from the mass in the universe to case the expansion to halt and the universe to re-collapse.&nbsp; Quite a revelation.</p><p>So Einstein's cosmological constant was resurrected and inserted into the field equations.&nbsp; A positive cosmological constant is effectively the same thing as dark energy.&nbsp; Dark energy is simply the "cause" of the cosmological constant.&nbsp; The problem is that nobody has the foggiest idea what it might be.&nbsp; It too is just a place holder to remind us that we are completely clueless about what is going on.&nbsp; </p><p>If dark matter and dark energy are your Achilles heel, you are in good shape and in very good company.&nbsp; NOBODY understands this stuff.</p><p>Here is a somewhat old but still viable tutorial on dark matter.&nbsp; It is directed at professional physicists, but you can profit from reading it.&nbsp; http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html&nbsp; There are other lectures by leading physicists available if you search the web.&nbsp; They will be better than what you get through a reporter from Discover.&nbsp; If you really figure out what is going on, don't keep it a secret.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi guys, I'd like to think my subscription to Discover has kept me fairly well informed regarding the various Dark theories-Dark matter responsible for explaining the missing source of gravity to explain the reasons for galaxies being held together, cluster interactions, and some lensing observations and accept that baryonic matter isn't sufficient but it puzzles me that a type of matter so elusive can have such significant effect. I'm not a flat earther and am not really familiar for any competing credible theories. Intellectually I concede there's massive amounts of theoretical work backed up by observation (of it's effects) but intuitively I wonder if there's a flaw somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts. I know there's been a lot of creative theorizing conflicting with accepted science on these pages lately but this topic appears to be my Achilles heel (I won't even start on dark energy!). Thanks. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV></p><p>First suggestion.&nbsp; Burn your copies of Discover and subscribe to Scientific American.&nbsp; Better yet, if you happen to have been inducted into Sigma Xi, subscribe to The American Scientist.&nbsp; Discover is OK, but they tend to sensationalize and distort a bit IMO.&nbsp;(Alright, I am sugar-coating it.&nbsp; I think Discover is generally only useful if you tear out the pages to start a fire in the wood stove.) &nbsp;The articles in Scientific American and particularly in The American Scientist are written by serious scientists who have deep knowledge of the subject matter. </p><p>Be aware that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are really fancy ways of saying "Beats the hell out of me."&nbsp; There is some recent observational data that supports the notion of dark matter and even some idea of how it is distributed.&nbsp; But it is still just a place holder.</p><p>As you noted the problem is that the rotation rates that are observed in the outer arms of spiral galaxies are faster than what can be justified on the basis of conventional theories of gravity and observed amount of mass in the galaxies.&nbsp; This has been a known problem for quite a while.&nbsp; Dark matter is one attempt to fashion an explanation.&nbsp; Another candidate (one that I really dislike) is MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) that is simply a curve fit alteration of the inverse square law of ordinary Newtonian gravity.&nbsp; The problem is the no one knows what dark matter is, although there are some candidates and no one has any rationale for why one ought to modify the inverse square law.&nbsp; So we have a place holder, "dark matter" to remind us that we don't know what is going on.</p><p>Dark energy is even a bit more shaky.&nbsp; In the late 1990's observations of type 1A supernovas suggested that the rate of expansion of the universe, thought to be decreasing, was actually increasing.&nbsp; All the theory up to that point would have had us believe that gravity was slowing the expansion down and the open question of the time was whether or not there was enough gravity from the mass in the universe to case the expansion to halt and the universe to re-collapse.&nbsp; Quite a revelation.</p><p>So Einstein's cosmological constant was resurrected and inserted into the field equations.&nbsp; A positive cosmological constant is effectively the same thing as dark energy.&nbsp; Dark energy is simply the "cause" of the cosmological constant.&nbsp; The problem is that nobody has the foggiest idea what it might be.&nbsp; It too is just a place holder to remind us that we are completely clueless about what is going on.&nbsp; </p><p>If dark matter and dark energy are your Achilles heel, you are in good shape and in very good company.&nbsp; NOBODY understands this stuff.</p><p>Here is a somewhat old but still viable tutorial on dark matter.&nbsp; It is directed at professional physicists, but you can profit from reading it.&nbsp; http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html&nbsp; There are other lectures by leading physicists available if you search the web.&nbsp; They will be better than what you get through a reporter from Discover.&nbsp; If you really figure out what is going on, don't keep it a secret.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Good point about <em>Discover</em> I must concede. Perhaps it really is the <em>Nova</em> for the next generation (without the ubiquitous UFO pieces). I do check out <em>American Scientific</em> now and then. The Wikipedia article on DArk matter is pretty good and thier definition of "Dark" matches yours to a T.</p><p>Perhaps it's a vacuum that my personal 'nature' abhors.</p><p>Thanks for the <em>&nbsp;link, I'll take a look.</em></p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Good point about <em>Discover</em> I must concede. Perhaps it really is the <em>Nova</em> for the next generation (without the ubiquitous UFO pieces). I do check out <em>American Scientific</em> now and then. The Wikipedia article on DArk matter is pretty good and thier definition of "Dark" matches yours to a T.</p><p>Perhaps it's a vacuum that my personal 'nature' abhors.</p><p>Thanks for the <em>&nbsp;link, I'll take a look.</em></p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Good point about <em>Discover</em> I must concede. Perhaps it really is the <em>Nova</em> for the next generation (without the ubiquitous UFO pieces). I do check out <em>American Scientific</em> now and then. The Wikipedia article on DArk matter is pretty good and thier definition of "Dark" matches yours to a T.</p><p>Perhaps it's a vacuum that my personal 'nature' abhors.</p><p>Thanks for the <em>&nbsp;link, I'll take a look.</em></p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>Good point about <em>Discover</em> I must concede. Perhaps it really is the <em>Nova</em> for the next generation (without the ubiquitous UFO pieces). I do check out <em>American Scientific</em> now and then. The Wikipedia article on DArk matter is pretty good and thier definition of "Dark" matches yours to a T.</p><p>Perhaps it's a vacuum that my personal 'nature' abhors.</p><p>Thanks for the <em>&nbsp;link, I'll take a look.</em></p>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Well, I'd argue that Dark matter isn't just a place holder or a fancy way of saying "here there be dragons".&nbsp; There is a lot of work in the field trying to figure out the 'properties' of dark matter.&nbsp; Mostly it's making lots of observations, lots of models to figure out what sort of matter is required to produce what we see.</p><p>Basically, it's like trying to figure out what's in a present without opening it.&nbsp; You shake it, listen to it, weigh it, examine the shape of the box, etc, etc, etc, so that you might be able to figure out what it is.&nbsp; Hopefully so that when you do open the present, you go "that makes perfect sense!".&nbsp; Hopefully </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Well, I'd argue that Dark matter isn't just a place holder or a fancy way of saying "here there be dragons".&nbsp; There is a lot of work in the field trying to figure out the 'properties' of dark matter.&nbsp; Mostly it's making lots of observations, lots of models to figure out what sort of matter is required to produce what we see.</p><p>Basically, it's like trying to figure out what's in a present without opening it.&nbsp; You shake it, listen to it, weigh it, examine the shape of the box, etc, etc, etc, so that you might be able to figure out what it is.&nbsp; Hopefully so that when you do open the present, you go "that makes perfect sense!".&nbsp; Hopefully </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Well, I'd argue that Dark matter isn't just a place holder or a fancy way of saying "here there be dragons".&nbsp; There is a lot of work in the field trying to figure out the 'properties' of dark matter.&nbsp; Mostly it's making lots of observations, lots of models to figure out what sort of matter is required to produce what we see.</p><p>Basically, it's like trying to figure out what's in a present without opening it.&nbsp; You shake it, listen to it, weigh it, examine the shape of the box, etc, etc, etc, so that you might be able to figure out what it is.&nbsp; Hopefully so that when you do open the present, you go "that makes perfect sense!".&nbsp; Hopefully </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Well, I'd argue that Dark matter isn't just a place holder or a fancy way of saying "here there be dragons".&nbsp; There is a lot of work in the field trying to figure out the 'properties' of dark matter.&nbsp; Mostly it's making lots of observations, lots of models to figure out what sort of matter is required to produce what we see.</p><p>Basically, it's like trying to figure out what's in a present without opening it.&nbsp; You shake it, listen to it, weigh it, examine the shape of the box, etc, etc, etc, so that you might be able to figure out what it is.&nbsp; Hopefully so that when you do open the present, you go "that makes perfect sense!".&nbsp; Hopefully </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I'd argue that Dark matter isn't just a place holder or a fancy way of saying "here there be dragons".&nbsp; There is a lot of work in the field trying to figure out the 'properties' of dark matter.&nbsp; Mostly it's making lots of observations, lots of models to figure out what sort of matter is required to produce what we see.Basically, it's like trying to figure out what's in a present without opening it.&nbsp; You shake it, listen to it, weigh it, examine the shape of the box, etc, etc, etc, so that you might be able to figure out what it is.&nbsp; Hopefully so that when you do open the present, you go "that makes perfect sense!".&nbsp; Hopefully <br />Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>I think it is definitely a place holder.&nbsp; I don't think it is shorthand for "here there be dragons".&nbsp; But we don't have a particularly good idea of what it is, where it is concentrated, or why it would be distributed in any of the hypothesized ways.</p><p>I don't think it is quite like trying to figure out what is in a present without opening it either.&nbsp; We seem to lack the box, let alone the pretty bow.&nbsp; Even being able to exhibit the box would be a giant step forward.&nbsp; Then maybe we could rattle it and weigh it.&nbsp; We are close to wondering if there is a Santa Claus or not.</p><p>You have to admit that it is pretty embarassing to have a conjecture that most of the universe consists of something that we seem to know nothing about.&nbsp; We know a lot more about what it isn't than what it is.&nbsp; The only thing that I am sure of is that the search for an explanation is legitimate science.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>