NASA report

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What's the story here?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'll let you know when they publish something. The press stories are too sketchy. I'm especially interested in the unexpectedly early age of some quasar formation, and in correlations between the microwave patterns and foreground galaxy clusters. I've already learned the WMAP folks have not allowed for the S-Z effect or gravitational lensing, both of which affect at least some of the signal. So these are not the final results, but just preliminary ones. -|Tom|-

What is the data they site that indicates "dark matter & energy" make up 96% of the mass of the universe? I must be the only one who just doesn't get this.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What is the data they site that indicates "dark matter & energy" make up 96% of the mass of the universe? I must be the only one who just doesn't get this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In the Big Bang (which I think is a fatally flawed theory), "dark matter" is required to explain what holds galaxies together, because there is not enough visible matter to do that. And "dark energy" is required to explain why the putative expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up instead of slowing down from gravity.

These inferences come from specific observations or experiments, such as measures of the orbital speeds of stars in galaxies, or observations of distant supernovae. -|Tom|-

And what is the assumption they make when calculating the orbital speed of stars in galaxies? I mean, the conclusion that comes from these calculations (that "dark matter" must exist) should arise from what is assumed to be valid...

So there is something seen that causes theory nuts to conclude that most of the mass in the universe is undiscovered and as Rush says whatever they are seeing could be falsely identified. And the method used to get this result could be bogus. This is a problem that should be understood by modelers and yet they act as if what they claim is absolute truth and anyone who doubts this is wacky. The standard model of the universe is only a model and it has staying power because it can adjust to any new data that comes along.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So there is something seen that causes theory nuts to conclude that most of the mass in the universe is undiscovered and as Rush says whatever they are seeing could be falsely identified. And the method used to get this result could be bogus. This is a problem that should be understood by modelers and yet they act as if what they claim is absolute truth and anyone who doubts this is wacky. The standard model of the universe is only a model and it has staying power because it can adjust to any new data that comes along.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is hard to belive that more than 90% of the Universe *must* be composed of undetectable non-ordinary matter/energy...<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> There is a work from Paul Marmet where he argues that dark matter can be just hydrogen in space.

www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Coments?