Slashdot Mirror
Galaxies Twice As Bright As Previously Thought
Astronomers led by Simon Driver of Scotland's University of St. Andrews have discovered that interstellar dust shades us from as much as 50% of the light emitted by stars and galaxies. The scientists compared the number of galaxies we could see "edge-on" against the number which were "facing us," reasoning that dust would obscure more of the former, since we already receive less light from them. SPACE.com notes, "In fact, the researchers counted about 70 percent fewer edge-on galaxies than face-on galaxies." A NYTimes report provides some additional details:
"Interstellar dust absorbs the visible light emitted by stars and then re-radiates it as infrared, or heat, radiation. But when astronomers measured this heat glow from distant galaxies, the dust appeared to be putting out more energy than the stars. 'You can't get more energy out than you put in, so we knew something was very wrong,' said Dr. Driver. The results also mean that there is about 20 percent more mass in stars than previously thought."
"except to bend the light through gravitious pull"
... :P
hence, "obscure"
From Wikipedia: The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the "visible" component of the universe
From the summary: there is about 20 percent more mass in stars than previously thought
Even if we assume that "vastly more mass" means 51% of all mass in the universe, we still have the problem of a lot of missing mass even with the increased estimations of stellar mass and interstellar dust.
This study may increase our precision in our calculations of universe mass, but it is by no means eliminating dark matter as a theory.
Wow, a simple, seemingly obvious (as always, in hindsight) observation that throws a lot of carefully balanced highly theoretical equations out of whack.
Of course, it could prove to be equally inaccurate by failing to take into account some other grand unknown that in turn will prove to be obvious, but I can't help but feel sorry thinking of all those academics sitting around a table of hardly-touched pints and muttering "well, fuck..." to no one in particular.
--
"You're only as smart as the guys you think are smarter than you."
Occam's tells us that we should select the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions. In this case, we can assume that the extra mass is accounted for by dark matter, or that the galaxies are emitting more light than we can see. Occam's doesn't appear to apply.
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
You ignored the HUGE ASSUMPTION, unsupported by any facts (except gravitational effects), that any exotic black matter exists, in any quantity. THE ONLY REASON it is theorized is because nothing else had been identified which could cause those gravitational effects. Now there is evidence of previously unknown mass.
You obviously don't know how to apply Occam if you prefer an unproven hypothetical to something which is observably evident.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Science is about explaining observations (evidence) with testable theory, not claiming a theory to be evidence.
The emperor has no clothes.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Your circular logic fails to prove that dark matter exists.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law