http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21529172

Can someone break down for me the liklihood of dark matter existing?
Is that possible?
Or is it one of those "depends on who you ask" kinds of things?

Apparently it is possible, according to many mainstream scientists.
But yep!… it looks like it depends on who you talk to at this point Kelly…

I do enjoy Moffat’s description of how many present-day scientists view dark matter today…
“Moffat compares the modern interest with dark matter to the insistence by scientists in the early 20th century on the existence of a "luminiferous ether," a hypothetical substance thought to fill the universe and through which light waves were thought to propagate.
"They saw a glimpse of special relativity, but they weren't willing to give up the ether," Moffat told SPACE.com. "Then Einstein came along and said we don't need the ether. The rest was history."

No more talk of a "luminiferous ether," by mainstream scientists… lol

Something always bothered me about the ‘dark matter‘ theory from the first time I heard about it… Like it verged on the ‘paranormal‘ or something. Dunno Just doesn‘t ‘feel‘ right…~rore

eta: I posted 2 links that have good info on this subject. First link goes right into a discussion on the subject (see post #4) and the 2nd link will provide other links and resources plus a search option (top, center of page) to find more discussion on the topic by some well informed sources… Stuff’s over my pea-brain tho… sorta…lmao

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstrea...ark-matter.html

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=bautf...FORID%3A1&hl=en

I never believed in dark matter. The positing of the ether in the 19th century is a good analogy. It was necessitated by the theory, but there was no evidence of its existence.

i would think that there is dark matter just because i believe the universe is made up of opposites.

Anti-matter is known to exist. So if the opposite of matter is anti-matter, what would dark matter be the opposite of? Dark matter is posited to account for mass that cosmological models say must be present, otherwise the models say that the mean density of the universe is too low for measured rate of expansion, so there therefore must be mass that does not visibly reflect or radiate and is hence called "dark". However, there is no direct evidence of its existence and it is an attempt to make the facts fit the theory. I refused to believe in it before it was cool to do so, but probably in a few years mainstream cosmological opinion will have shifted to not believing in it after a long, fruitless search.

Haha...I'm reading a thread about this on another forum, and the proposition that DM isn't proven and might not exist is really pissing some people off....hahaha...

It's not dark, it's heavy matter. Then there's light matter, which is really really light. LOL.

But, when you think about it, what does it matter if we say it does or does not exist? It's like saying that the Universe is a figment of it's own imagination, it's not going to affect anyone if we find that out, because it's already been doing that.

man how they gonna say that dark doesn't matter?

"The core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely to be mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood of support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that provided by chance."
-Horrobin, David F.; "Something Rotten at the Core of Science," Meta Research Bulletin, 10:17, June 15, 2001.

I guess, Kelly, bottom line is that while science may be objective in its methodologies...scientists are not..they are human and, therefore, subject (or slave) to their own interpretations and opinions. So, I'd say it depends on who you ask and what you want to believe.

That is why I view the purpose of science to be to create technology. Only rigorous science survives the crucible of engineering. What is correct and incorrect is decided by reality and not by the fashions amongst reviewers.

Thats a good way to look at it. Let the results speak for themselves.
This 'dark matter' has never really sit well with me, noone knows what it is. Its just filling the gaps cause we know there needs to be 'something' there to make other theories correct. I tend to think its more likely there may be something missing in Newtonian physics that we havnt come across