Sprawling galaxy cluster found hiding in plain sight

Sprawling galaxy cluster found hiding in plain sight
An X-ray image (in blue) with a zoom in optical image (gold and brown) showing the central galaxy of a hidden cluster, which harbors a supermassive black hole. Credit: Taweewat Somboonpanyakul

MIT scientists have uncovered a sprawling new galaxy cluster hiding in plain sight. The cluster, which sits a mere 2.4 billion light years from Earth, is made up of hundreds of individual galaxies and surrounds an extremely active supermassive black hole, or quasar.

The central quasar goes by the name PKS1353-341 and is intensely bright—so bright that for decades astronomers observing it in the night sky have assumed that the quasar was quite alone in its corner of the universe, shining out as a solitary light source from the center of a single galaxy.

But as the MIT team reports today in the Astrophysical Journal, the quasar's light is so bright that it has obscured hundreds of galaxies clustered around it.

In their new analysis, the researchers estimate that there are hundreds of individual galaxies in the , which, all told, is about as massive as 690 trillion suns. Our Milky Way galaxy, for comparison, weighs in at around 400 billion solar masses.

The team also calculates that the quasar at the center of the cluster is 46 billion times brighter than the sun. Its extreme luminosity is likely the result of a temporary feeding frenzy: As an immense disk of material swirls around the quasar, big chunks of matter from the disk are falling in and feeding it, causing the black hole to radiate huge amounts of energy out as light.

"This might be a short-lived phase that clusters go through, where the central black hole has a quick meal, gets bright, and then fades away again," says study author Michael McDonald, assistant professor of physics in MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "This could be a blip that we just happened to see. In a million years, this might look like a diffuse fuzzball."

McDonald and his colleagues believe the discovery of this hidden cluster shows there may be other similar hiding behind extremely bright objects that astronomers have miscatalogued as single light sources. The researchers are now looking for more hidden galaxy clusters, which could be important clues to estimating how much matter there is in the universe and how fast the universe is expanding.

The paper's co-authors include lead author and MIT graduate student Taweewat Somboonpanyakul, Henry Lin of Princeton University, Brian Stalder of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, and Antony Stark of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Fluffs or points

In 2012, McDonald and others discovered the Phoenix cluster, one of the most massive and luminous galaxy clusters in the universe. The mystery to McDonald was why this cluster, which was so intensely bright and in a region of the sky that is easily observable, hadn't been found before.

"We started asking ourselves why we had not found it earlier, because it's very extreme in its properties and very bright," McDonald says. "It's because we had preconceived notions of what a cluster should look like. And this didn't conform to that, so we missed it."

For the most part, he says astronomers have assumed that galaxy clusters look "fluffy," giving off a very diffuse signal in the X-ray band, unlike brighter, point-like sources, which have been interpreted as extremely active quasars or .

"The images are either all points, or fluffs, and the fluffs are these giant million-light-year balls of hot gas that we call clusters, and the points are black holes that are accreting gas and glowing as this gas spirals in," McDonald says. "This idea that you could have a rapidly accreting black hole at the center of a cluster—we didn't think that was something that happened in nature."

But the Phoenix discovery proved that galaxy clusters could indeed host immensely active black holes, prompting McDonald to wonder: Could there be other nearby galaxy clusters that were simply misidentified?

An extreme eater

To answer that question, the researchers set up a survey named CHiPS, for Clusters Hiding in Plain Sight, which is designed to reevaluate X-ray images taken in the past.

"We start from archival data of point sources, or objects that were super bright in the sky," Somboonpanyakul explains. "We are looking for point sources inside fluffy things."

For every point source that was previously identified, the researchers noted their coordinates and then studied them more directly using the Magellan Telescope, a powerful optical telescope that sits in the mountains of Chile. If they observed a higher-than-expected number of galaxies surrounding the point source (a sign that the gas may stem from a cluster of ), the researchers looked at the source again, using NASA's space-based Chandra X-Ray Observatory, to identify an extended, diffuse source around the main point source.

"Some 90 percent of these turned out to not be clusters," McDonald says. "But the fun thing is, the small number of things we are finding are sort of rule-breakers."

The new paper reports the first results of the CHiPS survey, which has so far confirmed one new galaxy cluster hosting an extremely active central black hole.

"The brightness of the black hole might be related to how much it's eating," McDonald says. "This is thousands of times brighter than a typical black hole at the center of a cluster, so it's very extreme in its feeding. We have no idea how long this has been going on or will continue to go on. Finding more of these things will help us understand, is this an important process, or just a weird thing that there's only one of in the universe."

The team plans to comb through more X-ray data in search of galaxy clusters that might have been missed the first time around.

"If the CHiPS survey can find enough of these, we will be able to pinpoint the specific rate of accretion onto the black hole where it switches from generating primarily radiation to generating mechanical energy, the two primary forms of

energy output from black holes," says Brian McNamara, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo, who was not involved in the research. "This particular object is interesting because it bucks the trend. Either the central 's mass is much lower than expected, or the structure of the accretion flow is abnormal. The oddballs are the ones that teach us the most."

In addition to shedding light on a black hole's feeding, or accretion behavior, the detection of more galaxy clusters may help to estimate how fast the universe is expanding.

"Take for instance, the Titanic," McDonald says. "If you know where the two biggest pieces landed, you could map them backward to see where the ship hit the iceberg. In the same way, if you know where all the galaxy clusters are in the universe, which are the biggest pieces in the universe, and how big they are, and you have some information about what the universe looked like in the beginning, which we know from the Big Bang, then you could map out how the universe expanded."


Explore further

Astronomers find fastest-growing black hole known in space

More information: The Clusters Hiding in Plain Sight (CHiPS) survey: A first discovery of a massive nearby cluster around PKS1353-341: arxiv.org/abs/1806.05676 , dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aace55
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Citation: Sprawling galaxy cluster found hiding in plain sight (2018, August 16) retrieved 20 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-08-sprawling-galaxy-cluster-plain-sight.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
217 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 16, 2018
"We started asking ourselves why we had not found it earlier, because it's very extreme in its properties and very bright," McDonald says. "It's because we had preconceived notions of what a cluster should look like. And this didn't conform to that, so we missed it."

Preconception of any object at such a far distance most often requires a full review and recall of erroneous information to the general public, which includes most science websites.
It is unpredictable the amount of confusion and mistrust such poor preconceived information could cause to young scholars who have placed their trust in scientists/researchers to provide absolutely good data.
Incalculable harm could result to students whose career goals are in STEM when, after having read the original data, they ultimately find that the researchers essentially were primarily "going by feel" rather than seeking the truth in their methods and theory.

Aug 16, 2018
"This might be a short-lived phase that clusters go through, where the central black hole has a quick meal, gets bright, and then fades away again,"

Said the confused merger maniac, wistfully.
"The brightness of the black hole might be related to how much it's eating," McDonald says. "This is thousands of times brighter than a typical black hole at the center of a cluster, so it's very extreme in its feeding. We have no idea how long this has been going on or will continue to go on.

Indeed, you have no idea (period).
The extreme quasar is the primary source for the cluster itself, ejecting newly formed matter therefrom at a prodigious rate. There is no way accretion can supply the needed material to fuel this monster. The new material is born from within, in a process merger maniacs simply cannot comprehend. Instead, they ignore logical deduction born from numerous observation, and cling to their fanciful assumptions. Otherwise, they will loose their careers.

Aug 17, 2018
From above report:
MIT scientists have uncovered a sprawling new galaxy cluster hiding in plain sight. The cluster, which sits a mere 2.4 billion light years from Earth, is made up of hundreds of individual galaxies and surrounds an extremely active supermassive black hole, or quasar.

...—so bright that for decades astronomers observing it in the night sky have assumed that the quasar was quite alone in its corner of the universe, shining out as a solitary light source from the center of a single galaxy.
Further implications:

- light received from that vast region is much more gravitationally redshifted than they previously assumed;

- quasars from 2.4 billion lightyears (to observational horizon) may also be associated with hundreds of galaxies around it like the one just now discovered above.

- this plus other findings of humongous amounts of ORDINARY mass previously unsuspected/unseen (ie 'dark') makes naive/simplistic 'EXOTIC' DM assumptions unnecessary.

Aug 17, 2018
- this plus other findings of humongous amounts of ORDINARY mass previously unsuspected/unseen (ie 'dark') makes naive/simplistic 'EXOTIC' DM assumptions unnecessary.


......but you must be wrong about this.

Pop-Cosmologists have already explained they knew about this missing VM even before they found it, that it had already been accounted for in the total mass of the Universe when they were doing TOTAL GRAVITY calculations.

Of course it has never been clear to rational thinking people how it can be known something is missing if you never knew existed in the first place, but that's Pop-Cosmology, never a cogent premise for their theories.

RNP
Aug 18, 2018
@RealityCheck
light received from that vast region is much more gravitationally redshifted than they previously assumed

The gravitational redshift caused by even the largest galaxy clusters is insignificant. It is only in radiation originating in the depths of potential wells such as a black hole that it becomes significant. Your comment shows that you have no understanding of the actual numbers.

this plus other findings of humongous amounts of ORDINARY mass previously unsuspected/unseen (ie 'dark') makes naive/simplistic 'EXOTIC' DM assumptions unnecessary.


This AGAIN shows that you do not understand the science. The discovery of new clusters does NOT reduce the need for dark matter. ALL clusters contain the same, or even greater, DM fraction as the rest of the universe.

Despite your repeated claim (over many years) that the mainstream is coming around to your view, there are NO mainstream papers that support it.

I defy you to actually produce one!

Aug 18, 2018
this plus other findings of humongous amounts of ORDINARY mass previously unsuspected/unseen (ie 'dark') makes naive/simplistic 'EXOTIC' DM assumptions unnecessary.


This AGAIN shows that you do not understand the science. The discovery of new clusters does NOT reduce the need for dark matter. ALL clusters contain the same, or even greater, DM fraction as the rest of the universe.


Despite your repeated claim (over many years) that the mainstream is coming around to your view, there are NO mainstream papers that support it.
.......you actually mean NO Pop-Cosmology papers to support it.

It has never been clear to rational thinking people how it can be known something is missing if you never knew it existed in the first place, but that's Pop-Cosmology, never a cogent premise for their theories from which you make up your own CONCLUSIONS from FACTS that never existed in the first place.


RNP
Aug 18, 2018
@Benni
.......you actually mean NO Pop-Cosmology papers to support it.


So, can you provide a SINGLE reputable paper that supports RealityCheck's claim, or are you expecting us to believe you and RealityCheck over EVERYTHING in the literature?

Aug 18, 2018
@Benni
.......you actually mean NO Pop-Cosmology papers to support it.


So, can you provide a SINGLE reputable paper that supports RealityCheck's claim, or are you expecting us to believe you and RealityCheck over EVERYTHING in the literature?


Sure I can mister freelance journalist, and you can read it without having to bother with clicking a link to a different site........just go to the top of this page & read this article, then go on to complain that it isn't credible evidence. Or is your problem the fact that the EVIDENCE is so clearly in the OPEN that there must be another explanation?

Hey, I'll bet you think that QUARKS have been isolated in the Hadron Collider and thus proven to exist? Let's just see if you find a way to say YES to this trick question.


RNP
Aug 18, 2018
@Benni

Sure I can mister freelance journalist, and you can read it without having to bother with clicking a link to a different site........just go to the top of this page & read this article, then go on to complain that it isn't credible evidence. Or is your problem the fact that the EVIDENCE is so clearly in the OPEN that there must be another explanation?


I have already pointed out that finding more clusters containing dark matter, does not mean that there is any less need for it to explain the observations.
Hey, I'll bet you think that QUARKS have been isolated in the Hadron Collider and thus proven to exist? Let's just see if you find a way to say YES to this trick question.


OK. What are the observations of b quark discussed in this page from the LHC website talking about ( https://home.cern...nts/lhcb )?

Aug 18, 2018
What are the observations of b quark discussed in this page from the LHC website talking about


The Standard Model does NOT result in logical analyses of spin 3/2 quarks. You do believe in the the SM do you not? Maybe just SORT OF is that it? What more could be expected of a freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation he could solve.

RNP
Aug 18, 2018
@Benni
The Standard Model does NOT result in logical analyses of spin 3/2 quarks. You do believe in the the SM do you not? Maybe just SORT OF is that it? What more could be expected of a freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation he could solve.


Your response has become so hysterical that it lacks a single element of either relevance or truth!

I really don't have any motivation for trying to hold a conversation with a RAVING lunatic.

So,..... RNP out.

Aug 18, 2018
The Standard Model does NOT result in logical analyses of spin 3/2 quarks. You do believe in the the SM do you not? Maybe just SORT OF is that it? What more could be expected of a freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation he could solve.


Your response has become so hysterical that it lacks a single element of either relevance or truth

I really don't have any motivation for trying to hold a conversation with a RAVING lunatic.

So,..... RNP out.
.............we know Rguy, it's hard competing inside the arena of REAL SCIENCE when all your fall back positions have no basis in reality.

Aug 18, 2018
@RNP.
light received from that vast region is much more gravitationally redshifted than they previously assumed
The gravitational redshift caused by even the largest galaxy clusters is insignificant. It is only in radiation originating in the depths of potential wells such as a black hole that it becomes significant.
What do you think resides in those hundreds of previously unsuspected galaxies, RNP? :)
this plus other findings of humongous amounts of ORDINARY mass previously unsuspected/unseen (ie 'dark') makes naive/simplistic 'EXOTIC' DM assumptions unnecessary.
The discovery of new clusters does NOT reduce the need for dark matter. ALL clusters contain the same, or even greater, DM fraction as the rest of the universe.
It's the ordinary matter of newly detected, previously unsuspected, galaxies that is the point: vast quantities of ordinary matter was previously left out of cosmic mass-estimates. Hence 'exotic DM' hypotheses no longer needed. :)

Aug 18, 2018
It's the ordinary matter of newly detected, previously unsuspected, galaxies that is the point: vast quantities of ordinary matter was previously left out of cosmic mass-estimates. Hence 'exotic DM' hypotheses no longer needed. :)


......but the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here does'nt like things that are in plain sight, they gotta be hidden so as to prevent a rational mathematical extrapolation that would disprove the psycho-babble of their most precious fantasies, you know, things like neutron half-life.

Aug 19, 2018
Gravitationaly Induced Redshift
In the vacuum there are trillions of galaxies where in each galaxy there are trillions of stars where in each stars there are untold trillion upon trllion atoms where in each atom are so far untold numbers of subatomic particles - In all the untold numbers of mind boggling proportions is there so much as a cats whisker - as the saying goes...
I met a man going to St Ives
As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits:
Kits, cats, sacks, and wives,
How many were there going to St. Ive
There is not so much as a cats whisker of darkmatter, as these numbers only contain matter
where this matter is also inertial mass where its gravity over the untold billions of light years gravitaionly redshifts or blue shifts photons for us to interpet.

Aug 19, 2018
Colour confinement
"Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, which exist as either baryons (which include protons and neutrons) or as mesons. For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of hadrons https://en.wikipe...ki/Quark "

What is colour confinement and its conection with the inability of observing quarks

RNP
Aug 19, 2018
@RealityCheck
With every post you display more ignorance.

It is only in radiation originating in the depths of potential wells such as a black hole that it becomes significant.

What do you think resides in those hundreds of previously unsuspected galaxies, RNP?


There is no significant radiation from regions close enough to a BH for gravitational redshift to be significant in what we see (and before you fall into the obvious trap, the accretion is disk if FAR to distant for it to be a significant effect there).

It's the ordinary matter of newly detected, previously unsuspected, galaxies that is the point: vast quantities of ordinary matter was previously left out of cosmic mass-estimates. Hence 'exotic DM' hypotheses no longer needed. :)


TRY to understand the maths! All of this ordinary matter is accompanied by the appropriate amount of dark matter, leaving the overall DM fraction unchanged.

So, these discoveries have NO impact with respect to DM .

Aug 19, 2018
There is no significant radiation from regions close enough to a BH for gravitational redshift to be significant in what we see (and before you fall into the obvious trap, the accretion is disk if FAR to distant for it to be a significant effect there).


> mister freelance journalist :

Having that degree you've got in journalism does not entitle you to impose YOUR FACTS on other people who are far better educated than your mediocre level of Pop-Cosmology.

Aug 19, 2018
Gravitationally Induced Redshift
granville583762> In the vacuum there are trillions of galaxies where in each galaxy there are trillions of stars

RNP> There is no significant radiation from regions close enough to a BH for gravitational redshift to be significant in what we see

RNP, the rational of your logical friend, as now he is downgrading and trampling on Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford
That aside RNP because in reality it's not your fault as you're not his keeper.
Concerning Gravitationally Induced Redshift, the frequency shift however slight is shifted every time a photon is near or grazing a star - the effect is cumulative from star to star on its journey to earth!

I suggest you spend less time and pay less attention to your logical friend as his influence is rubbing off on you - we don't want to see you rubbishing Professor of of universities
Please ditch your logical friend before you fall into his mire

Aug 19, 2018
Cumulative Gravitationally Induced Redshift Effect
This is why you appear to be correct RNP, because as you quote the text book, the book only discuss's the isolated incidents because that is all that is necessary for the purpose of educating as it is taking for granted the cumulative effect as general knowledge RNP.
See what I mean concerning your logical friends logic rubbing off on you -- it is already taking place without you noticing RNP!

Aug 19, 2018
@RNP.
There is no significant radiation from regions close enough to a BH for gravitational redshift to be significant...
And all that other 'gravitating stuff' previously missed, which makes up the bulk of the galactic and surrounding matter distribution in that region, including the widely distributed stellar-mass Bhs and NSs not yet (then) assimilated into the galactic nuclei supermassive BHs. You claim all that stuff NOW found has "insignificant" redshifting potential for photons generated from there and traveling for long distances through/out of, and affected by, all those individual gravity wells, polar jets, solar/galactic winds; not to mention the innumerable 'downshifting' effects from scattering processes from interacting with all that ordinary previously 'dark' matter everywhere?

A timely reminder, @RNP: maths assumptions/equations which leave out wholesale factors and inputs incorrect quantities, and so don't reflect actual reality, gives GIGO. Beware. :)

Aug 19, 2018
not to mention the innumerable 'downshifting' effects from scattering processes from interacting with all that ordinary previously 'dark' matter everywhere?


A new article should be hitting here in a few hours. It concerns the New Horizons spacecraft discoveries at the edge of the solar system where the Sun's radiation & solar wind effects stop.

What the spacecraft's instruments has picked up exactly at this point is akin to a wall of hydrogen & other very small particulate material that is unable to enter the solar system due to the outgoing effects of the Sun's distribution of energy that pushes this material away preventing it from entering. Yeah, lots of "missed gravitating stuff".

Aug 20, 2018
What the spacecraft's instruments has picked up exactly at this point is akin to a wall of hydrogen & other very small particulate material that is unable to enter the solar system due to the outgoing effects of the Sun's distribution of energy that pushes this material away preventing it from entering. Yeah, lots of "missed gravitating stuff".


OMG Benni, if only you understood the basics of GR you would not say such stoopid things.
"missing gravitating stuff", ha, ha, you just don't get it, do you.

Could you please explain why the missing "dark matter" cannot possibly be ordinary baryonic matter that has not been found yet?
Can you? I bet you cannot!

Aug 20, 2018
@Ojorf.
What the spacecraft's instruments has picked up exactly at this point is akin to a wall of hydrogen & other very small particulate material that is unable to enter the solar system due to the outgoing effects of the Sun's distribution of energy that pushes this material away preventing it from entering. Yeah, lots of "missed gravitating stuff".


OMG Benni, if only you understood the basics of GR you would not say such stoopid things.
"missing gravitating stuff", ha, ha, you just don't get it, do you.

Could you please explain why the missing "dark matter" cannot possibly be ordinary baryonic matter that has not been found yet?
Can you? I bet you cannot!
Excuse me, Ojorf, but Benni said "missED" not "MissING" in that post; he is implying matter previously unseen/uncounted in mass estimates, that's all.

ps: I'm heartened to see someone else paying attention to the evolving likelyhood that DM was/is ordinary, baryonic etc (as increasingly being found).

Aug 20, 2018
Common sense is certainly not cumulative in The Five Star Club
RealityCheck> Excuse me, Ojorf, but Benni said "missED" not "MissING" in that post; he is implying matter previously unseen/uncounted in mass estimates, that's all.
ps: I'm heartened to see someone else paying attention to the evolving likelyhood that DM was/is ordinary, baryonic etc (as increasingly being found)

It is becoming increasingly obvious members of The Five Star Club logic is increasingly morphing in to the logicality of their logical friend who now go's round rubbishing professors of universities by downgrading their research by duplicitous singular use of the rating system
They have lost all sense of direction and totally lost any residual common sense as their common sense is certainly not cumulative

Aug 20, 2018
it's hard competing inside the arena of REAL SCIENCE
Benni

You are no better than granville.
I take it this "REAL SCIENCE" is only your non-evidenced-based pseudoscientific opinions that have never successfully passed peer preview because certain smart people (scientists) who are smarter than you or me and know much we don't will take one look at your asserted opinions and laugh their heads off because its all delusional ignorant nonsense.
If it is really true that you actually believe all these reputable and extremely intelligent scientists are "gradually coming around to your opinion" then your also have mega delusions of granular; They never will. Why do you think they have so far not shown any sign of doing so?

Aug 20, 2018
Excuse me, Ojorf, but Benni said "missED" not "MissING" in that post; he is implying matter previously unseen/uncounted in mass estimates, that's all.


No, no, excuse me. You missed the point.
Benni thinks the observed effects attributed to DM is actually baryonic matter that has been missed by science, or missing baryonic matter. See?

Aug 20, 2018
When Benni talks about "real science" or "relativity" etc. He does not mean SCIENCE or Einstein's version of relativity, but rather some incoherent imaginary concept he dreamed up, not the real thing at all.
It's fun to watch him blundering about, but unable to answer even the simplest of questions when pressed.

Aug 20, 2018
We open another web page do we not
When Benni talks about "real science" or "relativity" etc. He does not mean SCIENCE or Einstein's version of relativity, but rather some incoherent imaginary concept he dreamed up, not the real thing at all.
It's fun to watch him blundering about, but unable to answer even the simplest of questions when pressed.

Ojorf really, any question when asked, as you quite rightly know can easily be answered because yourself and all your logical friends just do what we are presently doing; we open another web page, do we not Ojorf.

Aug 20, 2018
it's hard competing inside the arena of REAL SCIENCE
Benni

You are no better than granville.
I take it this "REAL SCIENCE" is only your non-evidenced-based pseudoscientific opinions that have never successfully passed peer preview because certain smart people (scientists) who are smarter than you or me and know much we don't will take one look at your asserted opinions and laugh their heads off because its all delusional ignorant nonsense.
If it is really true that you actually believe all these reputable and extremely intelligent scientists are "gradually coming around to your opinion" then your also have mega delusions of granular; They never will. Why do you think they have so far not shown any sign of doing so?

It is that Humy, dropped your brush...

Aug 20, 2018
It is becoming increasingly obvious members of The Five Star Club logic is increasingly morphing in to the logicality of their logical friend who now go's round rubbishing professors of universities by downgrading their research by duplicitous singular use of the rating system

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f0/d9/1e/f0d91e15be0d5bb59b9a1a134e3953ce.jpg

you're abusing the privilege

PS - Grammarly is free - grammarly.com
so is google translate

Aug 20, 2018
Could you please explain why the missing "dark matter" cannot possibly be ordinary baryonic matter that has not been found yet?
Can you? I bet you cannot!


Maybe you haven't done much reading lately, your favorite Cosmic Fairy Dust has taken so many steps backwards lately for lack of evidence of it's existence.

Pretty soon you're gonna be down to looking in a mirror sideways for discovery of anything resembling missing matter, and won't you be surprised to find the scale wasn't out of calibration.

Aug 20, 2018
Excuse me, Ojorf, but Benni said "missED" not "MissING" in that post; he is implying matter previously unseen/uncounted in mass estimates, that's all.

ps: I'm heartened to see someone else paying attention to the evolving likelyhood that DM was/is ordinary, baryonic etc (as increasingly being found).


......yep, that's often the heart & soul of the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here, here a twist, there a twist, everywhere a twist & before they can do yet another twist their words have already been reduced to unintelligible psycho-babble the shape of a pretzel. Oh, well, Ojo needs something to do.

Aug 20, 2018
@Ojorf.
Excuse me, Ojorf, but Benni said "missED" not "MissING" in that post; he is implying matter previously unseen/uncounted in mass estimates, that's all.


No, no, excuse me. You missed the point.
Benni thinks the observed effects attributed to DM is actually baryonic matter that has been missed by science, or missing baryonic matter. See?
Yes, you just reiterated exactly as he said in that relevant post of Benni's you quoted before; ie: "missed", not "missing" (since it's being fund all ver now, and it's ordinary, baryonic etc stuff). :)

So anyway, Ojorf, you now seem to be agreeing with what I have been observing for some time now, ie, that the DM (previously unseen) matter is ORDINARY stuff increasingly being found everywhere we look now (ie, it's not 'exotic' and allegedly interacting 'only via gravitation' as hypothesized for some time now)?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more