Secrets of Dark Matter

Stephen Tonkin wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

[...]

I tend to agree. Despite its many problems, BBT is the best theory we've
got.

[...]

What is not in doubt is that there is a lot of non-luminous
gravitating matter that we cannot see or detect at present.


Actually, AIUI there is some doubt in some quarters. IIRC there is a
hypothesis that does away with the need for dark matter by postulating a
mean path length -- the figure 17kpc lurches to mind, but is probably
wrong -- for gravitons. I have no more problem accepting a mean path
length we cannot measure for a particle that we cannot detect than I do
accepting the existence of matter that we cannot detect.

ISTR it is more along the lines of having gravitons with mass and
breaking Lorentz invariance. Is this the hypothesis that you mean?

http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2005/Tran...v/Tinyakov.pdf

Seems to me like it makes testable predictions so it qualifies as a
scientific theory.

To me it seems increasingly likely that Fred Hoyle was right
(continuous
creation) and the microwave background is caused by something other than
the Big Bang.

Not a chance. Even in the 1960's it was apparent that the Steady State
Universe was totally inconsistent

[...]

there is essentially no doubt that remotest parts of the universe are
receeding from us at speeds close to c.

AIUI Hoyle and Wickramasinghe postulated a Continuous Creation that is
not Steady State and which is consistent with the recession speed
observations.

ISTR they did, but it doesn't really have much appeal. That the young
universe looks different (much more active) compared to the present day
and makes Big Bang a far more natural choice with fewer ad hoc adjustments.

Regards,
Martin Brown