On 10/3/06, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:32:22AM +0000, Brian Beesley wrote:
> > Well ... if there is content (matter+energy, both "real" and "dark", i.e
> .
> > everything which has a mass)
>
> While we're at the digressions: Am I the only one finding dark matter to
> be
> an incredible hack, which we will hopefully look back at and laugh of in
> fifty years' time? :-) ("Hey, remember back when we couldn't get our
> equations to make sense, so we invented this horrible horrible hack of
> just
> adding 10x the visible mass...")I though Dark Matter started out as a concept, as in "This distribution of matter that we can't detect today would account for observations." At some point shortly after, someone started looking for it, theorizing about what would be undetectable or otherwise unobserved. Then the media runs with it as "Dark Matter Stirring Up Milky Way" or some such. We can't discount it as out of hand yet -- remember the neutrino? The positron? Unfortunately, scientists are in the position of imagining possible mechanisms to account for observations, then trying to prove the mechanism exists. Some ideas are untestable, some are quickly proved wrong. Somewhere in the remainder should be the answer (though it may not, or may not be possible to prove.) -- -QM Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
