Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dark matter never really existed… but it killed off the dinosaurs anyway

arroba Email
3-D impression of dark matter via Hubble

From Mark Anderson at New Scientist:

First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter

A controversial approach to gravity that challenges Albert Einstein and suggests dark matter doesn’t exist has passed its first test.

Now, a team of astronomers studying the distribution of matter in more than 30,000 galaxies say their observations can be explained by an alternative theory that does away with dark matter. If this “modified gravity” is correct, it would up-end hundreds of years of fundamental physics.

To their surprise, they discovered the observed lensing could just as readily be accounted for by a new model of gravity, without invoking dark matter. More.

From Dominic Basuto at Sydney Morning Herald:

In her book, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs, acclaimed Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall outlines a complex – and radical theory – that goes something like this: about 66 million years ago, gravitational perturbations caused by a thin pancake-shaped disc of dark matter in the Milky Way galaxy dislodged icy comets in the Oort cloud at the very edge of the known solar system, resulting in the fiery meteoroid that eventually crash-landed in the Yucatan, leading to the mass extinction of more than 75 per cent of life on the planet in the process.

<em>Coffee</em> Tins Doubtless, when they all meet up at Le Bistro NonCompute, they can sort it out.

See also: Once more:“What if dark matter doesn’t exist?”

Dark matter: Skeptics wanted


How do dark energy and dark matter relate to ID?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Seversky, Science (&Religion) are just chemical reactions in the brain. Same chemicals, same brain. Normal process I agree. ppolish
It is failing when knowledge decreases, confusion increases and explanations become irrelevant, contradictory and incomprehensible. Silver Asiatic
Seversky at 1, it;s a failing when one is still trying to climb out of the same rut centuries later. Happens. News
This is the normal process of science, trying to construct explanations of observed phenomena that work better than the alternatives. It's how science moves forward. Why do you always present it as a failing? Seversky

Leave a Reply