Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
In any case, it's not even really "missing mass". It's more a case of overlooked mass that wasn't considered beforehand because they didn't really look for it...or their sampling analysis techniques weren't able to resolve the mass.
You could tell from the way the wallies over at TB waffled on about "missing mass" and "only gravity" that they not only didn't understand what the paper was on about, but also that they hadn't a clue about the science in the first place. Show's you what happens when a mob of "armchair experts" thinks it knows what it's talking about. Even the armchair they're sitting in is riddled with termites   |
I found a
great paper which goes into the detection methods for low redshift Baryons. In the abstract, it says:
Quote:
|
The baryon content of the universe is known from Big Bang nucleosynthesis and cosmic microwave background considerations, yet at low redshift, only about one-tenth of these baryons lie in galaxies or the hot gas seen in galaxy clusters and groups. Models posit that these “missing baryons” are in gaseous form in overdense filaments that connect the much denser virialized groups and clusters.
|
I have a feeling this defines the term 'missing'. In a nutshell, it was predicted, but not found. It was thus 'missing'. Amelia et al are on the path of finding it.
I'm not sure I understand fully what the paper is on about yet … and I'm only an 'armchair amateur' ! Its very complicated because of the need for a detailed knowledge of the spectroscopic side of it.
Cheers