Problem with my posts

The french astronomy magazine "Ciel et espace" has published a very
interesting article about black holes and dark matter.

They say that Simeon Bird and also Sebastien Clesse say that the
presence of "primordial" black holes could very well explain dark matter.

It is a pity that the article of Ciel et espace doesn't give any
references. Looking for Simeon Bird in Arxiv gave this:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06699
[[Mod. note -- That url style is double archaic. The modern url
for that paper is
http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06699
-- jt]]

Where Mr Bird speaks about the possibility of detecting a gravitational
wave background due to primordial black holes.

Another article (from May this year) is:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1603.00464
Did LIGO detect dark matter?
[[Mod. note -- The modern url for this paper is
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00464
-- jt]]

Where he says that primordial black holes of about 30 solar masses would
be quite capable of giving the needed dark matter characteristics.

It would be interesting if the specialists here would look at those
explanations because they seem more related to physical reality than all
the WIMP theories... from a layman point of view of course.

But besides exotic explanations as primordial black holes, what about
normal black holes?

What about the other unseen masses that we have recently discovered?
Galaxies seem bigger than we thought, whole galaxies composed of very
few stars, almost invisible, appear now in our detectors as we improve
observations.

Could it be that simply dark matter is just that: matter that doesn't
emit a lot of radiation and because of that, we do not see it?

DARK: radiating, admitting, or reflecting little light

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dark?s=t

In article ,
jacob navia writes:

The french astronomy magazine "Ciel et espace" has published a very
interesting article about black holes and dark matter.

They say that Simeon Bird and also Sebastien Clesse say that the
presence of "primordial" black holes could very well explain dark matter.

Where he says that primordial black holes of about 30 solar masses would
be quite capable of giving the needed dark matter characteristics.

It would be interesting if the specialists here would look at those
explanations because they seem more related to physical reality than all
the WIMP theories... from a layman point of view of course.

Check out arXiv:1607.06077. A very, very thorough paper. Highly
recommended.

But besides exotic explanations as primordial black holes, what about
normal black holes?

BBN. Big-bang nucleosynthesis. We have good upper bounds on the total
amount of baryons. Much too low to be "the" dark matter.

What about the other unseen masses that we have recently discovered?

BBN. Big-bang nucleosynthesis. We have good upper bounds on the total
amount of baryons. Much too low to be "the" dark matter.

Galaxies seem bigger than we thought, whole galaxies composed of very
few stars, almost invisible, appear now in our detectors as we improve
observations.

BBN. Big-bang nucleosynthesis. We have good upper bounds on the total
amount of baryons. Much too low to be "the" dark matter.

Could it be that simply dark matter is just that: matter that doesn't
emit a lot of radiation and because of that, we do not see it?

DARK: radiating, admitting, or reflecting little light

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dark?s=t

BBN. Big-bang nucleosynthesis. We have good upper bounds on the total
amount of baryons. Much too low to be "the" dark matter.

"Dark matter" is something of a misnomer. It is actually TRANSPARENT.
Yes, it does not emit light, nor reflect it, but it does transmit it.