Hi Chris

I wasn't trying to correct you. Merely disguisuing the fact that I had
no useful answer to your question.

Well disguised.

In astronomical terms I punching way above my weight here which may be
confusing you and DEFIANTLY is confusing me.

Good point (I stand corrected as usual) but it isn't visible to us (yet)
which is why it's dark isn't it?

Following your logic the radiation from dark matter (if any) would
need to have a very low velocity not to have got here by now from the
nearest object containing dark matter.This assumes you had a detector
which could sense its presence once it got here if it was not in the
form of light.

I meant we can't detect it yet not it hasn't reached us yet. I mean, at the
speed of light, we've been receiving light from below naked eye visible
stars for a long time but it's only till the relatively recently that we
made
scopes to see them. The energy from dark matter (I agree, if any) could be
here already but we don't have the detectors ready for it yet.

Q: Images of distant galaxies contain both light and dark matter that
is
only visible to us...

To continue to show my lack of ability in this field one of my thoughts was
that it's infinitely fast. The dark areas on the film/CCD are dark the
instant you open the shutter/???, indeed, even before you open the shutter.
And yes, I really should join the 21st century and go digital. The energy
from dark matter doesn't turn these areas dark or some bright spark would've
spotted this and we could detect it and it would no longer be dark.

Thanks for the reply and making me think (though I could do without the
headache it's given me) ;-(

Neil