🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Nov.4.20.34.21.1992.1961@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>Dale Bass and others object to the hypothesizing of loads of extra
>dark matter lying about in order to fix up our various estimates
>of the matter density, etc.  I have sympathy for this, especially
>when it comes to postulating Mystery Particles (tm) but one thing
>is that there is good reason to believe in a fair amount of
>baryonic dark matter.

     In turn, I am much more sympathetic to baryonic dark matter if
     it can be made to work.  However, we seemed to be talking about
     'pixie' matter, a quantity that can probably be invented to 
     explain anything.   About 'fixing up' omega, I am not sympathetic
     at all.  There seems to be no compelling need from my perspective
     to have omega be one.

     I was under the impression, though, that such baryonic dark matter
     ran into trouble somewhere.

>Somebody just quoted Jerry Ostriker to me: "In astronomy, the only
>real mass determination is a dynamical determination."  Just 'cause
>we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

     Absolutely, but that is no real reason to invent large amounts
     of unknown matter with unknown properties.  Unknown matter with
     known properties seems more reasonable.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926