/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15735998
2/10. Better than many troll threads, but a bit unoriginal.

>>15736004
I'm not trolling. I literally believe this.
"Dark Matter" is just dust and gas between star systems.
Has anyone tested this hypothesis?

>>15736010
Dust isn't gravitationally stable, it likes to ball up. Over a few thousands years, no, but 100 million? It happens. Read the papers.

>>15736016
Okay yeah that's the model but has anyone actually looked or made predictions on how a galaxy would behave given a shit-ton of tiny particles? Maybe they are produced by stellar collisions and such. Maybe they can't clump because the stellar winds are stronger than the gravity and keep it chaotic.

> I know you can't SEE the dust
You can actually. Dust emits strongly at long far infrared wavelengths, it is heated by light from stars. There are literal maps of dust in the Milky Way and other galaxies. You can also measure it before it absorbs background starlight, and so the amount of reddening due to dust tells you again how much dust there is. People measure the dust density in the universe, there is nowhere near enough.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5073P/abstract
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07743

There is also the cosmological evidence. Both the abundances of light elements formed in the early universe, and the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background are sensitive to the total density of normal matter. These both probe a time before stars, galaxies, or dust. Both give consistent results, showing that there is nowhere near enough matter to explain dark matter. The CMB is also sensitive to the total density of matter. Showing that (as predicted by standard cosmology) there is much more total mass than baryonic matter alone.

The cosmological evidence could change under different cosmologies, but building a new model which can explain all the data is even more complex than just explaining dark matter.

There's also the issue that dust is produced by stars, and there haven't been enough stars to form so much heavy elements. Of the matter that is measured today only a small fraction of the matter is in heavy elements, about 2% in the Milky Way. Under your proposal those heavy elements would have to be 550% of the baryonic matter now. It's crazy.

Dark matter is a type of receptive metal.

>>15736181
*Reactive metal

>>15736198
If you were near dark matter, you could think at it, and it would react. At first petty reaction like a small vibration or jolt, or with proper craftsmanship, something more like a physical identification of impulse. Perfect for a neuro implant. There is dark energy, dark magic and dark Zen which are grades up from dark matter

>>15736200
Mind space is dark matter, mind containment is antimatter.

>>15736198

>>15736269
Yeah? Eat my fat juice fatty EEEeHHEHEHAHAH

>>15736276
FART * lol

>>15736279
See I'm almost full IQ because I can't think I must stumble on things and I'm almost able to say correct answers 100%

>>15736283
I will wait that out.

You, 200 yeara

>>15736283
There'll be a sharp clicking of all languages etc. I'll read it all like a book. But not right now. You still confuse me with your hidden language LaTeX

>>15735998
Our sun used to be considered a dwarf star.
Then our telescopes improved, and it turns out our sun is bigger than more than 90% of the stars in our galaxy.
I'm still very much of the opinion that "dark matter" is just measurement error, and astronomers are too stubborn to admit it.

>>15736178
A good response. OP, just expects things and fucks off. Little brat.

>>15736321
>I know I'm right, astronomers are too stubborn to admit it.
>No I've never heard of baryon acoustic oscillations, why do you ask?

>>15735998
>Am I wrong?
Yes.

>>15736321
Dwarf just means it's not a giant, retard. It's still a G Dwarf.