View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-July-2008, 01:52 PM
byronm byronm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101001 View Post
How does the scoring work?

Wasn't dark matter always considered subject to gravity and first described as a source for gravitational effects?

(Or, are you thinking not of dark matter, but of dark energy?)
Of course dark matter was always considered subject to gravity.. dark matter was invented because some form of matter "HAD" to be there and we simply couldn't see it. (for simplicity sake)

The same "HAD" to be there translates to dark energy. For the universe to be expanding there HAS to be dark energy. I guess my kudos to gravity is that finding of real "matter" is a point for gravity and that as we add to the known "matter" out there we will negate the need for "Dark matter" and on the flip side of that we may negate the need for "Dark energy" since we may be able to prove or theorize things with more knowns of the whys & ifs.

dark matter/dark energy are really bad names. Dark matter seems to describe missing mass that has a gravitational effect but dark energy is something that is somewhat anti-gravity and used to explain the expansion of the universe. Thus personally i'm thrilled when gravity as we understand it with items that have mass as we understand it comes out in the end.
Reply With Quote