It seems most of the so-called "missing matter"...

[shaneo4217]

...of the universe is missing from in between the ears of mainstream
astronomers.

Nothing from outside the mainstream prevalent view of astronomy
or cosmology ever seems to make it into mainstream media. The
same old mantras of black holes and Dark This and Dark That trip
effortlessly off the tongues of ever-so-proper BBC TV narrators and
local ring-in astronomers alike.

I can only hope when mainstream astronomers finally paint themselves
into that mathematical/hypothetical corner, and have get out of it, that
the result is as sticky and as unpleasant as such a thought experiment might
suggest.

"After me, class, if you want to pass: Gravity! Gravity! All is Gravity!"

Cheers!

[303vegas]

Did you see Newsnight on 6th Feb? They had a nailed-on piece about dark matter at the end of the show but they were using magnets to explain how dark matter 'organises' galaxies into filaments, clusters, etc. I found it difficult to believe that they were discussing a make-believe substance and clinging to the gravitational model* while all the time the answer was right in front of them!

* the scientist in question, 'dr' michael brooks parroted the mantra that it wasn't a magnetic force but it was the gravitational forces created by the invisible 24% of the universe which is suposed to be dark matter that causes galaxy clusters.

How do they get away with this? When I was at school if I tried to tell them that the reason why 24% of my homework was missing was that it was invisible 'dark homework' I'd have been in detention for a month!

here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 6_02_2013/ it's about forty minutes in.

To her credit, young Maitliss doesn't seem overly convinced.

My main question is: what was the point of this article?