.com.unity Forums - OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder. (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=25478)

Re: OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:
SIMP's (Strongly Interacting Massive Particles): They interact with normal matter strongly, but still are thought by some to form at least a part of dark matter. Hypothetical Particel! Not proven to exist yet. SIMP Link (not much info)

This one has more info on SIMP's.
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/0604darkmatter.html

Also taks a bit about WIMP's, and their interactions in the early universe.

Re: OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

Everything I don't know about dark matter I learned from
"Schlock Mercenary":

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20031208.html

Re: OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

OK, this might be a dumb question, but...

Why do astronomers have to introduce the idea of this mysterious "dark matter" to account for the gravity in the galaxies? Couldn't the extra mass simply be made up of planets, asteroids, dust, black holes and other objects that don't emit light and are therefore hard to detect? Do all planets have to orbit stars? Couldn't there be just lots of big planets in between the stars, independently orbiting the galactic center, so that they make up the missing mass?

Re: OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

Quote:

All those planets, asteroids, dust, black holes, etc. would by definition be dark matter. Dark matter isn't some wierd kind of exotic material, it's a general category for a whole lot of mass that astronomers calculate has to be there to account for certain gravitational effects but that is hard enough to detect that they haven't found it yet.

Re: OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

Thanks, that makes sense. I was somehow under the impression that "dark matter" was composed of some sort of strange and unusual material that's not found on earth.

Re: OT: Lost in the Galaxy? No wonder.

Quote:

Kamog said:
OK, this might be a dumb question, but...

Why do astronomers have to introduce the idea of this mysterious "dark matter" to account for the gravity in the galaxies? Couldn't the extra mass simply be made up of planets, asteroids, dust, black holes and other objects that don't emit light and are therefore hard to detect? Do all planets have to orbit stars? Couldn't there be just lots of big planets in between the stars, independently orbiting the galactic center, so that they make up the missing mass?

The 'why' is that the universe is not behaving right for the observed material. It looks like there is more gravity than the currently known contents of the universe can account for. So, there are various ways to invent more mass -- either simply 'dark' but normal matter as already mentioned, or also as 'exotic' stuff that doesn't even interact with normal matter except through gravity.

It should be pointed out, though, that we might not have mastered how gravity actually works yet. There is a very detectable discrepancy in the movement of the Pioneer space probes (currently the furthest man-made objects from earth). They have not moved as far as they should have. Not by much, but by enough to make the NASA engineers and scientists wonder what is going on. And even though they are moving in opposite directions (i.e. on opposite sides of the solar system), they show the same degree of this discrepancy, too, so it's not easily explained by some hidden planet somewhere. There may be an extra 'fudge factor' in the way gravity works over great distances that would explain the movement of galaxies without requiring all that 'dark matter'.