Re: The phrase 'dark matter'

Dear The Real Chris:

"The Real Chris" <me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5rUug.9376$5B3.2508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1153171175.102035.115090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
Since there are still loose ends, why do you say
the list has been finalized? There is still much
supposition as to the properties of DM, and I see
no theory to explain the processes involved, other
than that of my model, which currently excludes
the possibility of attractive gravitation since
massless DM particles cannot contain the
+energy required to have an attractive force.

It just means "not lit" an average cloud of dust and
hydrogen is not visible unless it is lit by a nearby
star.

The problem is, normal matter has to *not* be located where it
can scatter light passing through it. This places it in very
special places, impossible places and/or very temporary
locations. We are getting the "normal and expected" amount of
light from the sources that are held in place by Dark Matter.
And closer in, we are getting normal and expected light from
those sources too.

Dust and hydrogen clouds don't work.

Junk science.

I'd like to think so too. The facts are otherwise.

David A. Smith


.