Dark matter a dying theory?

Please explain your point here.
I have an idea where you want to go with this, but I am not sure if I am imagining it or if my fears are correct.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I am assuming that you are referring to the spin rates of galaxies. If not, then the rest of this post will be more for general knowledge.The first hint that dark matter existed was that galaxies were spinning too slow as measured by the luminous mass of the galaxy. However, this isn't the only evidence for dark matter. Gravitational lensing offers the best evidence for dark matter. We know from relativity that mass distorts spacetime, therefore dark matter should do the same even if it does not reflect, absorb, or emit light.Secondly, dark matter does not seem to interact with luminous matter, something akin to neutrinos. This is why dark matter is often referred to as WIMP's (weakly interacting massive particles).The perfect place to put these two characteristics to the test is in galactic collisions. When two galaxies collide the luminous matter interacts. This slows the luminous matter. However, the dark matter does not interact and moves right through. This should leave 4 different areas of mass, two for luminous matter from each colliding galaxy and two further away on each side for the dark matter. So how do we look for these areas of mass? Gravitational lensing of light from background galaxies. So what are the results? Exactly as predicted. The picture below maps the luminous matter in red and the dark matter in blue: Read more here:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosSo not only is the math correct, we can now map the distribution of dark matter around galaxies. I would say that dark matter is not a dying theory.

No real point other than what is stated. I’m aware that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if a massive earthquake, or an asteroid impact can modify the behavior of a mass, a solar flare could move a star etc., then perhaps the behaviors are being affected by interaction forces (unseen matter in a standard sense) instead of invisible matter.Or maybe the unseen matter is just too small to see, like a group of asteroids.Or again, our math could just be wrong. The greater the distance the greater the difference a small mathematical error can show (i.e. if you measure a 6 ft. line--next to a 6 ft. wall--and are off an inch the first foot, the difference at the end will be 6 and a half inches, with a line length of 6 ft. and 1/4.)It could just be variations in spins and balance because the 'evidence' is strong for spiral galaxies.I'm simply suggesting there are other possibilities besides invisable matter. I'm not a scientists, so You can take what ya want or leave it all at that.Edited by tesla, : added a wall. hey, maybe I'll make a room out of it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

How does this produce gravitational lensing of light? This would dim the light coming from background galaxies which would be detectable. Dust particles much smaller than asteroids blocks our view of our own galactic core (which is very bright), as a counter-example. Again, this does not explain gravitational lensing where no luminous mass is observed. Those other possibilities have to take all of the observations into account, not just the spin rate of galaxies.

From the article.Also: "all astronomers agree that dark matter is such an exotic idea as to border on the crazy."Also: "It is still possible there is some modification of gravity going on"This to me is propaganda; scientists have to believe in dark matter to have funding for science in their field.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You know, light can do some funny things, because it will take the quickest path. We can only guess at what is between us, and what we are looking at over very long distances. Gravitational lensing"There are ongoing searches to use lensing to find a type of dark matter called MACHOs (massive compact halo objects). Although MACHOs, as dark matter, cannot be seen themselves, if they pass in front of a source (e.g. a star nearby), they can cause the star to become brighter for a while, e.g. days or weeks. This effect has been observed, but determinations of the dark matter are not yet conclusive."

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

We don't have to guess. We can directly measure it. When measured, light is being bent by gravity produced by non-luminous mass. How does this explain the observations made in the bullet clusters discussed in my post above?

So by your conspiracy theory these guys where not funded but forked own their own cash for their research ?Science isnt a religion where you have to believe in a particular fictional character if you want to be in their club. You can even attack evolution if you do it scientifically and if you win fame glory and fortune await you

False. Scientists have to back their claims with evidence. Period. Scientists who claim that dark matter exists have backed this claim with experiments and evidence. What is not tolerated is people sitting in the back row taking potshots at a theory they never intend to test.If anything, scientists who vehemently disagree with the current consensus are more strongly tolerated within science than in other professions. Fred Hoyle was famous for staunchly rejecting the Big Bang theory, yet he was kept around just because he disagreed. More importantly, Hoyle at least tried to produce a competing theory. He was wrong, but at least he was spectacularly wrong.

I'm simply pointing out that light can be tricky. All our stellar observations are of very old light (distance of a million light years means we see what that looked like one million years ago, not in current time)There was a phenomenon of an iceberg appearing to fly. The light was following the fastest path to the observer and appeared in the sky instead on the ocean where it was, out of view of the observer.I'm saying: nobody truly knows, and there are still a lot of other potentials besides invisible matter to explain the behavior. We don't know, everyone is guessing.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

And so far they have failed to do that. Many scientists see what they want to see. It doesn't mean there are no other explanations.The data has to be interpreted. It doesn’t mean initial interpretations are correct.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Every single observation we make anywhere is of old light. You seem to be throwing up arbitrary distances so that you can ignore the evidence. Scientists aren't guessing. They are creating hypotheses and testing those hypotheses (the bullet cluster example I mentioned is a perfect example). So far, dark matter has passed those tests.For a similar theory in science perhaps you should do some research on neutrinos. These are weakly interacting particles that were used to explain missing energy in supernovae explosions. It has a lot of parallels with our current discussion on dark matter.

Quite the opposite. They have tested their hypotheses and they have passed testing. The bullet cluster collision above is a perfect example. Can you please show why the interpretations are wrong?

Initial post. That site [The initial analyses] is from: is dedicated to new science. I'm pointing out there is not any evidence. LMAO an 'educated' guess is still a guess !

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Initial post. That site [The initial analyses] is from: is dedicated to new science. I'm pointing out there is not any evidence.

---

That doesn't answer the point, and it isn't true. Aside from the fact that the story referred to in the OP only dealt with one form of dark matter and didn't touch on the evidence for dark matter in general there have been positive results from other experiments.So lets be honest, shall we. You over-interpreted a story that was already out of date. And that's it.