Dark Matter discovered?

[Dr_Strangelove]

:confused: Now I am totally confused.

First we were told that gravitational lensing was in of itself proof that dark matter exist. Now the recently discovered fact that gravitational lensing survives a cluster collision is proof. See:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

Not to mention the plethora of claims of proof preceding this most recent observation.

Here are some off the cuff observations if any one would like answer/comment:

1) The “bullet cluster” is assumed to have formed when two galaxies passed through one another. The pictures seems to clearly show that the interstellar gas from each was “dragged” by collisions with the gas from the other. That makes sense but why does it appear that there is no distortion in the overall shape of the clusters of galaxies. Like dust in the wind they should have moved. The galaxies seem to be evenly distributed after the collision. They should have been dragged in the same direction of the gas. Any ideas/explanations?
2) Doesn’t this observation just prove that if dark matters exist, it doesn’t interact with normal matter or even with itself accept gravitationally? But wasn’t that already a necessary property of dark matter?
3) Why does everyone call anything having to do with gravitational lensing “proof of dark matter”?

[Dr_Strangelove]

Here's the simple logic test given a Mr. P and his answers:

"If A is true then B will be observed."

B is observed.
1) What is A?
Choose one: ___True ___False ____Indeterminate?
Mr. P answers True.
He is wrong, the correct answer being Indeterminate. Although A cause B, it may not be the only cause.

"If A and C are true then B should be observed."
B is observed.
2) What is A:
Choose one: ___True ___False ____Indeterminate?
Mr. P's answer is True.
He is wrong again, the correct answer being indeterminate.

3) What is C?
Choose one: ___True ___False ____Indeterminate?
Mr. P's answer is True.
He is wrong again, the correct answer being Indeterminate.

"If D is true then B will be observed"
B is observed in a situation where the effects of D are minimized.
4) What is D?
Choose one: ___True ___False ____Indeterminate ____ A and C are both True.
Mr. P chooses the absurd answer "A and C are both True".

Of course Mr. P flunks the test with a score of Zero.
Nevertheless, the science news headlines all read "Mr. P proves C exist".


Now let's meet the contestants:

Mr. P is one of many well respected physicists.
A is General Relativity
B is gravitational lensing
C is dark matter
D is interstellar dust

And F is Mr. P's grade in simple logic.

Oh, by the way, if you're wondering why A wasn't mentioned in the headlines it is because it was developed by a Mr. E who nobody questions.

[Epsilon=One]

:confused: Now I am totally confused.So your posting indicates.

Observation settles any question concerning "dark" matter's (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) existence.

The question is not: if there is "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) (or, its cousin: "dark" energy (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DE)); but, what is its etiology/genesis? Why is it transparent? Where does it come from? Why doesn't it radiate? Where does it go? How does it interact?; et cetera.

...when two galaxies passed through one another. ...why does it appear that there is no distortion in the overall shape of the clusters of galaxies. Like dust in the wind they should have moved. The galaxies seem to be evenly distributed after the collision. They should have been dragged in the same direction of the gas. Any ideas/explanations?Yes. There is a tremendous amount of "space" between the stars of a galaxy and its other salient components; the stars and components seldom actually collide. Sorta like ghost ships passing one another, at sea, on a dark moonless night.

Doesn’t this observation just prove that if dark matters exist, it doesn’t interact with normal matter or even with itself accept gravitationally?No. All atoms are formed from the interaction/compression of "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM). When it interacts with itself, there are quite noticeable events that are referred to as quasars and gamma-ray bursts.

You might say that human beings are nothing but the detritus of "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) that has evolved from "dark" energy (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DE). . . . to which we will return.


But wasn’t that already a necessary property of dark matter?
3) Why does everyone call anything having to do with gravitational lensing “proof of dark matter”?[/QUOTE]

[Dr_Strangelove]

Yes. There is a tremendous amount of "space" between the stars of a galaxy and its other salient components; the stars and components seldom actually collide. Sorta like ghost ships passing one another, at sea, on a dark moonless night.


If the interstellar gas can collide with itself it would surely collide with something as large as a star.

[Epsilon=One]

If the interstellar gas can collide with itself it would surely collide with something as large as a star.The probability is exceeding small.

[Epsilon=One]

Now let's meet the contestants:

Mr. P is one of many well respected physicists.
A is General Relativity
B is gravitational lensing
C is dark matter
D is interstellar dust

And F is Mr. P's grade in simple logic.

Oh, by the way, if you're wondering why A wasn't mentioned in the headlines it is because it was developed by a Mr. E who nobody questions.No body was more aware of the lack of logic concerning theoretical physics and the fallacies of "A" than Mr. E!!!

If logic were a prerequisite, there would be very few employed theoretical physicists.