"Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> wrote in news:80hmnfFeetU3@mid.individual.net:
Ah! But there was good reason for Pauli to pedict the neutrino, nuclear
reactions were NOt balancing and energy had to go somewhere.
"Dark matter" is a "material" postulated in a situation where other,
at least as reasonable explanations, are available.
Also it appears to be (as I said) remarkable by its avoidance of baryonic
matter and all the apparent effects that I am aware of involve scaling
factors that (to me) give strong credence to alternative explanations.
In other words, the bigger the chunk of the Universe, the higher the
proportion of "Dark Matter".
Oh well, I'm getting on a bit now and I haven't got so many years to hang
around to see the experimental results. But at the moment I think that i
might put it up as a bet with some of my old colleagues from auckland
university, along with (IMO) the mythical, detectable "Gravitational
Please don't talk too much of "background noise" though, this stuff is
supposed to be about 90% of the mass of the universe. Perhaps it is hard
to detect for the same reason that LIGO doesn't work, but then that makes
current theories of gravity even dodgier!
If you and the guys at LIGO are right my pension may get a bit of a blow.
But so far in the latter case I'm still winning.