Comments on: No Dark Matter http://blog.drakengren.com/2005/10/10/no-dark-matter/ The place for me to turn abstract stuff into concrete (!). Mon, 16 May 2011 13:06:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Thomas Drakengren http://blog.drakengren.com/2005/10/10/no-dark-matter/#comment-42 Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:27:50 +0000 http://conceptualintegrity.wordpress.com/2005/10/10/no-dark-matter/#comment-42 Yep, the language is nice. And in particular I like the way physicists (and mathematicians, for the matter) can tie what almost seems like everyday language (like “dark matter”) to very precise physical (or mathematical) concepts.

]]> By: Marcus http://blog.drakengren.com/2005/10/10/no-dark-matter/#comment-41 Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:13:17 +0000 http://conceptualintegrity.wordpress.com/2005/10/10/no-dark-matter/#comment-41 I can’t say that I understand any of the details of the paper, but I read the following: “Dark Matter” is a “trick” necessary to make Newtonian mechanics work for describing the dynamics of galaxies. These guys show that general relativity can handle galaxy dynamics without resorting to “exotic” dark matter. (I was hoping that Theoretical Astrophysics would be relieved of patching theories to make them fit data …)

B.t.w. I love the language of the paper. Physicists write with much more entertaining prose than computer scientists, engineers or biologists. This is something I should have known when I choose my career…

]]>