Theory of Everything - View Single Post

michellemfry · 02-09-2006, 07:17 PM

I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but I thought it was based on the observed velocities of galaxies. For the observed velocities, a certain amount of mass is thought to be required to account for the integrity of the galaxy at that speed. But when we compare it to the known mass of the universe, a gaping hole opens up. We look and are not able to observe the mass in normal baryonic matter, protons and neutrons. This is one of those situations that causes even the most centered individual to wildly speculate and wonder. Is what we know about the fundamentals really valid? How can the effects of the mass be there, but no particles found? The best description at present is missing mass. At present, the universe is awfully quiet about it's capabilities. Kind of fun, isn't it?

	(#2 (permalink))
michellemfry Master Status: Offline Posts: 620 Thanks Given: 1 Thanked 4x in 4 Posts Join Date: Nov 2005 Rep Power: 17	02-09-2006, 07:17 PM I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but I thought it was based on the observed velocities of galaxies. For the observed velocities, a certain amount of mass is thought to be required to account for the integrity of the galaxy at that speed. But when we compare it to the known mass of the universe, a gaping hole opens up. We look and are not able to observe the mass in normal baryonic matter, protons and neutrons. This is one of those situations that causes even the most centered individual to wildly speculate and wonder. Is what we know about the fundamentals really valid? How can the effects of the mass be there, but no particles found? The best description at present is missing mass. At present, the universe is awfully quiet about it's capabilities. Kind of fun, isn't it? Michelle