|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
a grey matter question
Would simply increasing the mass of the observed objects
account for the motions of those objects, or must the extra invisible mass (dark matter) be located in regions of space where there are no visible objects? These two options seem to be mutually exclusive to me. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
a grey matter question
Dear catch22:
On Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:16:46 AM UTC-7, catch22 wrote: .... Would simply increasing the mass of the observed objects account for the motions of those objects, Yes, that could be made to work, but really special physics is required. or must the extra invisible mass (dark matter) be located in regions of space where there are no visible objects? That too. Understand though that we can see the dust that adds "flesh" to the bones of individual stars. But we cannot see the stars when they are too far away, they are point light sources, and we cannot image them. So distant stars without lit dust to add "size", are effectively Dark. Add highly ionized gas, that can only interact with X-rays or hotter, and you can have lots of invisible normal matter. These two options seem to be mutually exclusive to me. All a work in progress. Keep your hat on. David A. Smith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Just solved the whole dark matter puzzle with my last question (belowDark Matter/Mark Datter thread) | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 23 | April 21st 08 09:45 PM |
Grey Night Sky | M | Amateur Astronomy | 14 | March 18th 07 11:31 PM |
dark matter question | Bob Jenkins | Astronomy Misc | 26 | March 1st 07 07:08 PM |
Basic Dark Matter question. | Charles Cagle | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 23rd 05 12:42 AM |
Dark Matter question | Info Plumber | Misc | 12 | November 15th 03 09:58 PM |