| I think in the Feb. 93 issue of Scientific | American it was mentioned that for the Big

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

|> I think in the Feb. 93 issue of _Scientific |> American_ it was mentioned that for the Big |> Bang theory to remain plausible, |> dark matter must exist. As in a post regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, statements such as this pique my curiosity about the legitimacy of your physics background and education. I am genuinely interested in understanding how you can get matters such as these so wrong, and be a person about to recieve an undergraduate degree in physics. The validity of the Big Bang is not predicated on the existence of dark matter; rather, the possibility of a cyclical universe is. The Big Bang *could* be a single, one-time event without the need for dark matter. However, the possibility of a cyclical Universe is not the reason for postulating dark matter. Indeed, there is actual real data/evidence that led to the theory of dark matter. Specifically, it is because observations of rotational dynamics of other galaxies implies significantly more matter in the body than can be accounted for by totaling up the observable matter that dark matter has been put forth as a posible explanation. A competing explanation is that there are black holes at the centers of these galaxies, thereby affecting the rotational dynamics without a visibly obvious explanation. Both the dark matter and black hole theories are alive and well, and it is probable that both will wind up being at least a partial explanation for the observations. Dark matter has further evidence in the observed dynamics of galactic clusters and groups. Observed relative motions imply greater mass than can be accounted for by what is visible. -- Dave Waller

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank