Dark Matter sighting

wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that, if the dark
matter were made of bricks, or centimeter-sized
chunks of rock, or something like that, then their
density in the solar neighborhood would not be the
same as their average density throughout the
Universe.

But that's a phony comparison.

Dark matter, Hubble surveying showed, is very clumpy
itself, and IIUC, most of the universe is as devoid
of DM as of other kinds, so that "average" _across
the universe_ is a flawed metric.

What matters to "direct detectability of Earth-local
dark matter" is the average density of dark matter
at our orbital radius from the center of the Milky
Way, not some universe-wide average.

However, per the moderator's suggestion, I went
looking for "meteors per time frame" numbers, and
this URL

http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN01-3...ume_story.html

makes it look like seeing putative baryonic objects
at a density sufficient for accounting for "dark
matter gravitation" would be nearly impossible. If
my "one per several hours" guesstimate is correct,
the evidence would be at the noise level of existing
impacts from solar-origin meteoroids.

Oh, well.

Next candidate: how massive is the Oort cloud, and,
if every star has one, how does that fairly
invisible matter compare in mass to the requirements
for accounting for dark matter gravitation?

xanthian.

Notice that I don't for a moment believe that dark
matter IS baryonic, I'm just trying to eliminate
baryonic candidates, a task I'm sure reputable
astronomers have already accomplished in much
greater detail before me.