>(((Dark))) """""""""Matter"""""""""""""""""""

>>8746121
>matter that doesn't emit light or radiation in detectable levels

It is probably just space sand.

>>8746121
its just small black holes m8

>>8746145
>(((Black))) """"""""""Holes""""""""""

Please tell me you don't believe in this.

File: POCKETSAND.gif (2MB, 363x212px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 363x212px

>>8746137
>It is probably just space sand.
Is it more effective than pocket sand?

File: bulletcluster_comp_f2048.jpg (520KB, 2048x1480px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2048x1480px

>>8746121
A few years ago I was convinced by the Bullet Cluster. And I realised that dark matter isn't necessarily matter, we just don't know what else to call it right nao.

>>8746137
I don't like sand. It's course and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere

Could "dark matter" be rogue planets?

It seems like 100% of our exoplanet research relies on study of occlusion or gravity wobble in stars but once a planet gets even a relatively small distance away from a star it becomes undetectable. There's very likely a gigantic Neptune sized object whizzing around "only" 0.02 light years away from our own sun that we can only detect in the vaguest ripples and no one has successfully laid eyes on yet

So for all we know couldn't interstellar space be STUFFED with big rocks? Instead of an endless void and vacuum between us and Alpha Centauri, just millions of big cold dark planets?

>>8746541
If that were the case they would be constantly be passing in the way of light we're receiving.

>>8746547
But again that's a major part of how we detect exoplanets now and it's incredibly difficult to detect a planet occluding a star of the planet is practically on top of the star, so in the interstellar medium the "shadow" cast would be imperceptibly small

And I bring up Planet Nine again because that thing is in interstellar terms very large and very close yet no astronomer has yet seen the starlight that rock is blocking out of the sky

>>8746541
Even though there isn't fusion happening within small planets, they still emit blackbody radiation based on their temperature. This radiation is mainly in the infrared for planetary matter, and there is not enough infrared light detected for this to be a sufficient explanation for dark matter.

>>8746121
Of course it exists, cause we observe something and that's what we call it. Don't confuse yourself that a name means anything.

>>8746517
Fucking classy.

>>8746595
//Thread

>>8746557
>because that thing is in interstellar terms very large
I think you have a misconception about interstellar scales. The SUN is small in interstellar terms, and it contains 99.99% of the matter in the solar system. Think about how much rogue matter you would need to surpass past this .01%, let alone the amount you would need to surpass 5 times the 99.99% (which is how much you would need to explain dark matter).

>>8746602
I structured the sentence poorly. I meant as a complete term "very large and very close" as in it's right in our own backyard, is bigger than everything save the sun and the gas giants, and we still can't see it

And if something that relatively large and that extremely close is near undetectable then what kind of rocks might be whizzing around one light year away?

>>8746517
kek

>>8746121
Studying it right now and yes I do believe in it. Try and read about gravitational lensing.

>>8746137
Nah unfortunately it warps spacetime too much to be something diffuse.

>>8746145
Not likely. Some of it may be, but the vast majority is likely to be cold "stuff" that we can't really into yet.

>>8746541
If there was enough rogue planets in the galaxy to account for the excess matter, we would be viewing them all the time with telescopes. This isn't what dark matter is.

>>8746614
There is approx. 5 times more dark matter in the universe than luminous matter. Consider that an average star is about 100,000-1,000,000 times more massive than a planet, we would be seeing tens of thousands of planets about Jupiter size in every star system. We would also be capturing new planets all the time in the sun's gravity. That's obviously not the case.

>>8746328

This. Dark Matter/Energy doesn't 'exist'. At least, it has never been observed. Its a mathematical concept for theorists to plug into equations so they make sense.

>>8746121
The people with schhol papers says itsreal so it is

>>8746680
The bullet cluster is the best observation you are ever going to get. How can you be upset about something never being observed when it doesn't fucking interact with photons? I bet you bitch about how little neutrinos we are measuring too.

>>8746601
But what we're observing is an effect and calling it a thing. I guess the word "matter" is misleading.

>>8746666
What if all the planets have been taken away from us? What if we werent chosen guys....:(

>>8746690
>observing an effect and attempting to explain it with a thing
This is what science is. I don't see any other way to go about it. The scientific community has developed a cause for the effect that fits with the rest of the model. The word matter is not misleading because the effect being observed is equivalent to a lack of matter in the current model.

I could just as easily say the word matter is misleading when talking about ordinary, non-dark matter, because mass is not a measure of how much stuff (matter) there is, it's a measure of how much energy there is. And all "stuff" can actually be thought of as a probability distribution, ie. a wave rather than a bunch of little balls. So unless you can give me a valid definition of matter, you should not be complaining about "dark matter" misusing the word.

>>8746121
>(((I))) """"know"""" better <than> leading ¿experts?

Please don't tell me you actual think it

>>8746714
hi guys,

so what's up with string theaory? i don't get it so it's wrong, eh